User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

• Special report: Springer's misappropriation of Wikimedia content "the tip of the iceberg"

• News and notes: Foundation finance reformers wrestle with CoI

• WikiProject report: Counter-Vandalism Unit

• Featured content: The cake is a pi

• Arbitration report: Procedural reform enacted, Rich Farmbrough blocked, three open cases

• Technology report: To support or not to support IPv6, and why knowing when this report was last updated might be getting easier

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Vyasan

Could you please re-block User:Vyasan for violating the topic ban which you placed on him (see User talk:Vyasan#More inappropriate edits); you also blocked him for a week on June 8, and extended the ban. However, in this edit, his first since the block expired, he immediately made a comment on Talk:Nair (which I will remove under the provisions to remove comments of banned users). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Boing beat me to it . Thanks for reporting him here, however! Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a big range but I am beginning to suspect evasion using IPs beginning 117.236 - see the history. It is probably pointless taking it to SPI, though. - Sitush (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I share your concern; however, the range is a tad too big for my tastes, so I have semied the talk page for a week instead. Should he be back after that, I'll extend the semi-protection. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

semying the talk page for a week was an apt decision :-), cheers ! VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I am not Vyasan. I am sure you can figure that out from posting styles though I am not aware of Vyasan's posting style. I am showing up User:Sitush's obstructionism and his sidekick Qwyrxian is here to stifle debate.

Now that VS seems to be coming around to my charge of obstructionism by User:Sitush in the Talk:Nair page, is he also going to get blocked?

This is a serious issue because User:Sitush and User:Qwyrixian are deliberately obstructing debate and change in the main Nair article. I smell caste prejudice and I would like to find out how this can be brought to the attention of someone who can arbiter this issue.

I am also going to request to unprotect because the charge is false and was made without any good evidence. I am amazed that a few Users have so much influence here that they can play all kinds of games here.

Please do the decent thing and unprotect the page.

OK. The Protect page says that I should first try with the admin like you.

Please unprotect the Talk:Nair page. You can read my comments there and figure out that I am only trying to wrest away the page from User:Sitush who is insistent on maintaining the main page according to his ideologies.

You should unprotect because you quickly blocked the page without even making a cursory check. I have been only a reader for a long time and only a few days ago did I start editing. I haven't shown any malicious intent. I haven't changed any main article. Done absolutely nothing wrong except try to produce discussions on a few sections on the Nair page. Can't people have multiple discussions about editing different sections? Or does wikipedia follow a policy whereby a page is owned by someone (like say User:Sitush here) and everyone has to only discuss what this user wants?

This page protect was patently unfair and biased towards your favourite users. Shame on you!

First of all, please try to cool down and stop making personal attacks on other editors, such as Qwyrxian and Sitush. The fact Sitush was reported various times and never sanctioned, by the way, should indicate that he was not doing anything wrong, considering that the community — and not a single admin — reviewed his actions. Regarding the protection of the article's talk page, you appear not to be Vyasan, so you can create an account and, once you have done so, I will grant you the confirmed flag which will allow you to edit through the semi-protection. I'm not going to lift it for the moment, however. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Another example of bias is to limit any information from the Nair community. It is like saying that French history written by a Frenchman is not acceptable or Jewish history written by a Jewish person is not acceptable. This kind of nonsense is continuing and I am helpless in figuring out how this can be combated. That person seems to have an arm-lock over the main article and refuses to let any change happen that is not to his/her taste.

If you can tell me some remedy (other than creating a username), I would be very grateful. I am not creating a username because all such people who questioned User:Sitush have either been banned or they have left in frustration after being mobbed by his admin friends.

There must be at least one decent admin here on wikipedia. I have already tried with a few..

Sitush is not trying to exclude sources written by Nairs, he's merely trying to exclude those that are trying to depict the Nair as the best caste that there ever was, which would violate one of Wikipedia's most important policies, namely WP:NPOV, which mandates that all articles be written using a neutral tone; furthermore, some of them fail Wikipedia's requirements regarding reliability, cf. WP:RS. It has nothing to do with bias, but rather with following Wikipedia's rules. And, if you're not willing to create an account, then you'll just have to wait for the semi-protection to expire, I'm sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I posted the above before I saw your edit MrSilvio. I am not going to make a username for the reasons I mentioned above. I have found at least three users who have been banned or left in a huff after picking a fight with User:Sitush. You haven't addressed the other procedural issue that I asked: aren't users allowed to debate multiple sections or has wikipedia become a site with moderated articles?

Thanks for the response btw, because I have been trying to get responses from several places over the last 3 days. I apologies for being a bit rude.

But no apologies for taking names because this is a personality issue and I suspect bad motives because ultimately this is a caste thing.

Yes, you can debate on multiple sections, but you have to take into account what Wikipedia's policies mandate. There are some limits to what can be included in an article and they have nothing to do with bias. That said, Sitush is not Indian and neither are Boing or Qwyrxian. We are not interested in slandering a caste or in praising another; for instance, I am Italian and, though I have studied your culture (your law, mainly, I must admit), I don't have any horse in the caste race... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw your message on my "page". I just can't figure out a way to deal with a person who is a master at wikipedia bureaucratese. The best way to fight bureaucratese is to learn it myself and throw it back. But who has the time to invest? It's no wonder wikipedia editors have left in droves.

You have been incredibly decent to me and I apologize again. But I will be giving up. I had made the same noises before but I didn't want to give up just yet. I seemed to have inspired at least two people to talk up. But they are being crushed by User:Sitush again (you can see it happen on the Talk:Nair page right now). Now you have given me a nice break to get over the whole thing. Lesson learnt about the authenticity of wikipedia.

IP, the problem is not one of having several discussion threads running at the same time but rather that there have been several threads running about the same thing at the same time, which is just pointless. Furthermore, if sources are being queried then it makes sense to examine them in a logical sequence because a scattergun approach is liable to bring chaos to any review of their reliability etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Dude, if you find it difficult to pay attention to all that is happening there, then don't pay any attention. Wikipedia doesn't run only because of you. The rest of us can and will debate and change what we want. Just because you are a master at wikipedia bureaucratese doesn't mean everything will run according to your arbitrary rules. You have repeatedly set down arbitrary rules as I saw in case of refusing to mention the caste of the former Chief of Indian Army. But you have powerful allies in the admin team and so you can get your way.

A good example is how the page got semi-protect simply out of a false allegation from you. All it took was you to allege something. It's also funny that your closest buddies were on the issue even before it was broached here. I wonder if you are in touch with them off-line.

@Salvio, no he is simply refusing to hear out Nair or Nayar authors. Go read the garbage he is putting down in the Talk page. Thanks for slandering whole communities. Sitush is clearly of South Asian origin. I will bet that.

Look at all the Indian pages that he is marring. Complaints all over. But he seems to be the Guru of wikipedia.

@Savio, just making sure you get this because I posted it on Boing! said Zebedee page.

User: "done the needful" Sitush is clearly not South Asia, Indian or of Indian-origin and of course pigs fly.

http://www.cnngo.com/mumbai/life/10-indianisms-652344

So please do the needful, Mr Savio ;)

You may want to see that after a few minutes of 1 , this happened !!! and presently this is ongoing . Anyways I have presented my observations at WP:ANI. However, It does appear to me alarming that everyone who gets in to a dispute with the same two users, seem to get a ban within minutes even without an edit war history (presently that includes me). User:Sitush is definitely a good-editor and I donot think he is a casteist, but I am genuinely concerned that any consensus-building is converted to filibustering because of certain inappropriate behaviours/status-belief or vehemently discredited through ad hominems or ban happens !!!. I understand that caste –related articles need to be watchlisted and patrolled to prevent disrupting edits from caste warriors, but I believe the present situation may have developed in to totally another matter altogether. I have provided at WP:ANI a sample of what those observations are. VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

• Investigative report: Is the requests for adminship process 'broken'?

• News and notes: Ground shifts while chapters dither over new Association

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

• WikiProject report: The Punks of Wikipedia

• Featured content: Taken with a pinch of "salt"

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, GoodDay case closed

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks about sparing me the boomerang. Well sure the consensus was that there was no hounding, would you now informally intervene in the dispute? I really don't want anyone blocked or banned, however the said editor is ruining my editing pleasure. Thanks in advance. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually I jumped the gun, only the hounding has been closed and not the proposal. :-)Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion is ongoing and there is no clear consensus, for the moment, so I did not feel comfortable closing it just now. I'm sorry. I will monitor the discussion, however. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Erode

Have you got time to review today's history at Erode, an article that I pruned not too long ago. Spifft suspects a sock but I am less sure. It is certainly odd, however, and I didn't seem to get very far when I tried to sort the issues out with the original reinstater, Senthilrockz. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ha! It seems as if I am having one of those days. A contributor to that article has now doled out a barnstar encouraging another to take legal action against me. Bizarre. - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have just rollbacked the edit in question and was about to leave a warning on their talk page, but I see you beat me to it; today I'm feeling lenient and, so, will not block for the moment, but I'm about to take a look, to see if I can detect socking. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Guess what, you were right. Two socks indeffed & master blocked for a week. Should he be back, please let me know and I'll block/semi-protect as needed. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

More Spiffy than me. User:Sinsen is the probable master, apparently. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Your memory scares me... Sinsen's edits are stale, so I could not checkuser him, but the available behavioural evidence is enough to convince me that it was indeed the same person operating the various accounts. So I have reblocked Senthilrockz, this time indefinitely. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I will spare you another! My bet is that the indef blocked User:Vermapriya1986 has morphed into User:Priyankanift, a SPA with a fascination for puffing up Govind Kumar Singh. I will send that one to SPI. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Sitush is here defending the Situshpedia. His allegations are accepted at face value despite having been found completely unfound and perhaps motivated in my case.

Modus Operandi: See anyone offering strong opinions or changing Situshpedia, run to a favourable admin, accuse him/her of being some banned user from the past and voila! The admin immediately accepts the charge.

As a checkuser, I have access to certain private bits of info; in this case, after running a check on one of the accounts mentioned here, I saw that all three were a confirmed match: same IP address and same user agent. That's as blatant as it can get... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm! Then why did you jump the gun on spurious allegation against me (I am referring to the Vyasan). Did you private bits of info tell you something that even God doesn't know? Also, what's with the buddy-buddy camaraderie between you and Sitush? I have noticed the same with other admins too but I don't see the same admins being all buddy-buddy with other minions.

There is a saying in English and since you are Italian, I am sure you will find it all the more interesting.

"Caeser's wife must be above suspicion."

Curiously enough, we have a very similar saying in Italian as well; that said, if you recall, I confirmed you were not Vyasan and offered to grant you the confirmed flag to allow you to edit through semi-protection, but you refused because you do not want to have an account. That said, I try to be friendly to anyone who drops by my talk page and I don't think that an occasional witty remark can be seen as inappropriate. Do you know why Sitush often "wins" debates? Because he is experienced and actually know Wikipedia's policies — and tries to abide by them. Take the case discussed in the next section: there he was dealing with a person who was edit warring to include primary sources into an article, whereas Wikipedia tries to only rely on secondary sources. He was warned and yet persisted in violating two policies; a block was inevitable. No conspiracy there, no favouritism. It's just that there are rules and those who persevere in not following them end up blocked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me first translate wikipedese into ordinary English.

Primary Sources = witness accounts, Native sources etc Secondary Sources = Orientalist Euro-centric sources As usual, the White Man wins. But it's not your fault. You didn't develop this cruel system.

But Sitush doesn't win only because of his politics but also because he has a network of friends who allow him to get away with anything he wants. His opponents are pushed to the brink and eventually banned. Case in point is that of [User:Vettakkorumakansnehi]. The guy is much too careful so that he doesn't get banned now. But he was pushed to his wit's end and reduced to calling for help. But none of it helped him in whatever he was trying to do. I think he will get banned eventually just like anyone who dared to go up against Sitush.

Your semi-protection was wrong because it was based on a spurious allegation. The decent thing to do was to accept your mistake and remove it immediately because the cause of the semi-protection was wrong at the fundamental level. It would have also dissuaded Sitush from making such quick allegations in future. But you insisted on keeping it and helping Sitush game the developing consensus on the Talk:Nair page. This is how Sitush wins. Because of his biased friends like you.

Indeed, an encyclopedia developed and controlled by armchair politicians. I wouldn't have cared for this site except for its ability to sell garbage as facts. It's too dangerous and in this particular case, an open attack on our identities.

Next, we will see American Colonists' opinion of Native Americans as facts.

Warring at Kulin Kayastha

Since you are familiar with WP:3RRNB and are around at present, please could you take a look at the contributions of Ruderow at Kulin Kayastha. They have been warned of both EW and the caste sanctions, and I have tried to engage. - Sitush (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Standard one-day block for edit warring and standard topic ban. Please note, however, that you're on the verge of breaking 3-rr. I don't want to be a pain in the neck, but just saying... Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I was aware of that. I am not great at maths but can usually manage to count to three, or even four on a good day <g> I had initiated a discussion some time previously but I won't be reverting any time soon due to the bright line. - Sitush (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not great at maths but can usually manage to count to three, or even four on a good day. I can count to 20; when naked, to 21... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Haha! Don;t forget, I've had accidents involving toes and angle grinders ... and I am currently using some very large chainsaws! - Sitush (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, in that case I believe I'll steal my daughter's abacus... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand wikipedese but clearly Situshpedia must be defended. Ban, block, delete etc etc ad nauseum in service of Sitush.

Take look at the Talk:Nair page to see how he vanquished a building consensus under VS. The whole thing was buried under a mountain of wikipedese.

Could you please go through Sitush's reverts on Kulin Kayastha page and verify if they are at all required. In the very first place, I was the one who had written the article, which was later completely edited by Sitush citing problems with citations and references. I did a lot of research later and then came up with proper citations and references, in which I took care of all the issues being debated on the talk page. Even those edits were reverted by Sitush, with very vague explanations. I then sought to undo their reverts and explain why they should at least go through the edited portions and before I could do it, I saw that Id been reported here and you had promptly acted on the report blocking me for a day on all edits, and for three months on all kayastha edits, under your "WIDE" discretionary powers under Caste Sanctions. It is amply clear that {u|Sitush}} hasn't put in any good research in writing this article. They have brought this to a personal level and have been reverting all edits, I have been making to the article to make it more substantial and well referenced. Id be really happy if you could go through the article and compare the edits, and assess the concerns expressed on the Talk Page by various other editors. The edit war is actually being spearheaded by Sitush on the article, and its just that I got reported, you'd observe so if you were to go through the edit history. In the light of the foregoing, please also consider revoking my ban. Wiki users expect to get accurate (maximum possible) and well referenced material on Wikipedia. Edit wars harm users more than anybody else. Kindly be prompt in you action. Also, wouldn't it be in the interest of fairness that if an Edit war on an article is RAGING, BOTH warring parties are banned from editing the concerned article,and a neutral third party assesses the entire situation.Ruderow

Administrators tend to deal with behavioural problems, whereas content disputes are left to different methods of dispute resolution. In this case, I blocked you because you broke WP:3RR, a rule which prohibits users from making more than three reverts on the same article within a period of 24 hours. It's a bright-line offense, which means that, no matter if you think you're correct, if you break it, you get blocked. Sitush did not break that rule, as he did not revert more than three times. That is why I did not block him. Regarding the actual content dispute, from what I could gather, you were trying to source some statements to a couple of judgements, which are primary sources, whereas Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources to back up statements. That said, if you intend to follow one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution methods — only one, you choose which one: RFC, third opinion, WP:DRN —, I may relax your restriction, to allow you to participate in said discussion. You just have to tell a. if you accept my proposal and b. if so, which DR method you choose. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

How long shall this continue?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear Salvio, TopGun is again trying to get people blocked[1] although it is very clear how people came to the article. DS through this discussion. I think what constitutes the actual stalking is TopGun trying to get DS blocked again for simply editing an article. Then, TopGun just edit-warred what has been pointed out on the article's talk as blatant source falsifications back into an article.[2] I am sorry, but this is disruptive editing and damaging to wikipedia. JCAla (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not edit war, I made a single revert... look at the no of reverts JCAla made.. this is clear cut adminshopping and calls for WP:BOOMERANG as I'm being accused of an editwar in a blatant lie. My report is self explanatory and also that was not just against DS... it was for both DS and JCAla who both followed me and Mar4d yet again. JCAla is editing without gaining consensus and his own view that a source is misrepresented is not even verified yet... and OR is not an editwar exemption in anycase. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You are following us. You have followed me to Civil war in Afghanistan (1992-1996).[3] You have followed me to Muslim Brotherhood.[4] And now you are stalking both DS and me by again adminshopping at Magog's. This explains everything. TopGun has crossed a line here. He restored - what has been pointed out - as clear source falsification. This is simply nothing more than disruptive. JCAla (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm already involved in Civil war in Afghanistan (1992-1996) dispute.. that is the first dispute we had; at Taliban. I can't possible "follow you there". I made a single edit ever, not relating to you, at Muslim Brotherhood and you've accused me of following you there 10s of times and Salvio has not taken any action there.. that's clear cut WP:POINT. A single revert in favour of BRD is not disruption in anycase (even if I restore OR - though I doubt that I did). --lTopGunl (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No, our first dispute at Taliban was about whether Pakistan today supports the Taliban and had nothing to do with the Afghan civil war. You came to the Muslim Brotherhood article - which you had never edited before - mere hours after I had edited that article for the very first time. This is self-explanatory.[5] You restoring serious source falsification - not OR - is damaging to wikipedia. JCAla (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS is also OR if you call it that per falsification or whatever... but as you see that is still not an exemption and a permission for you to restore or remove content more than once (that's editwar). And you continued the first dispute to being about the civil war which you are still on with on multiple articles. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation, not OR (and this is only one out of several examples from that article)

Ahmed Rashid writes in "Pakistan and the Taliban": "The paramilitary [Pakistani] Frontier Corps were used to help the Taliban set up an internal wireless network for their commanders in the field. Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) and the Air Force sent in technicians to repair Kandahar Airport and the MiG fighter jets and helicopters the Taliban had captured. ... When the Taliban launched their second attack on Herat, the [Pakistani] ISI weighed in with a limited amount of military support." Mar4d made the following out of it (a clear-cut source falsification): "According to an April 1998 column published on The Nation by Ahmad Rashid, the Taliban's attacks on Herat in 1995 were independent actions." This was the version I introduced removing the source falsification: "According to "Pakistan and the Taliban" by Ahmed Rashid, also published on April 1998 as a column in The Nation, Pakistan furthermore directly provided limited "military support" in the Taliban's September 1995 offensive against Herat ..." TopGun restored the source falsification.

JCAla (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘How about you both just stay off Salvio's talk page and give him a chance to respond? Like the other 500 or so times you were both warned about bickering on others' talk pages. Present your case and get the hell off of it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• [6] This is an obvious sock (and I don't know whose - but evidently supporting JCAla)... can you CU it and taken undisclosed action however policy allows? I understand that you can not reveal users' IPs. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This probably wont be connected to a user since the guy was bold enough to create an account.. but a proxy or meat puppet nonetheless. I guess it will be easier to CU now (though less likely to produce results). [7] --lTopGunl (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL. I guess I should take that as an accusation. Well, go ahead, check it, got nothing to hide. But if it is proven in any case that I am not connected to the IP, actions should be taken against TopGun for making wild socking accusations. He should have waited to revert the IP unless it is proven that it is a sock. That is the way it goes and the way it always went. Even worse, he again restored the misrepresentations. Obviously it seems to be beyond TopGun that other editors are opposed to his edits. Ironically, TopGun has had a variety of IPs popping up supporting him in the past including countless Nangparbat socks but also undisclosed IPs and socks on web proxies. JCAla (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, both TG and DS edit in the same general area so I'd go easy on the stalking/hounding accusations if I were TG. I'd also suggest that both of them go easy on reporting each other otherwise I don't see any alternative other than the total site ban that was proposed on ANI earlier. Act grown up and stop running to admin pages every two minutes. --regentspark (comment) 10:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

How long the pattern should get before I wait...last time it had to be about 20-50 articles? --lTopGunl (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• A couple of things, I have checked the IP and he doesn't seem to have been a sock at all. Of course, there is always the possibility of meatpuppetry, but the guy seems clean, which means, I guess, that TopGun ought to apologise and self-revert. That said, I agree that this is a content dispute, that should be solved through WP:DR. On a personal note, I add that I, in this case, I tend to agree with JCala. I would not go as far as calling it source falsification, which is a serious accusation and, in my opinion, requires the accuser to prove a pattern of violations, but, nonetheless, I personally believe that the content he reverted back in does not reflect what the cited source says. Regarding stalking/hounding, RegentsPark hits the nail on the head, again, as far as I'm concerned. There is a limited group of users who edit most of the articles in a relatively small area. It's normal that from time to time someone will follow someone else to an article and vice versa; but this is not stalking to me. Considering the circumstances, there is stalking when a person repeatedly shows up at articles he's never edited before to revert the edits made by the other editor in a short lapse of time. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bring up a pattern for you next time for the stalking then, though I meant it to be a continuation of one I previously gave... this article was never edited before by JCAla and DS. About the user... any reasonable person would have called it an obvious sock or atleast meat... see Magog's talkpage for the clarification.. I can't self revert, the IP now created an account and reverted me anyway... but my suspicion on JCAla was not baseless (even if wrong about direct connection - I wasn't gambling about it being JCAla as I presented the case)... he was being supported on an obscure article. The user account has gone to add stuff JCAla proposes often to two articles at the moment so I am still doubt full about this account. An SPS enters a contentious area to support one editor.. that's typical. Also, I was accused of editwarring by JCAla, when I had made a single revert to him, where he was reverting more than once instead of following DR. That's not civil. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Instead of an apology, there come even more accusations. False ones. The other article edited by Woundedwarrior1 (the new editor), I have i. e. never edited at all. I find TopGun's logic quite ironic given the countless undisclosed web proxies and IPs and Nangparbats that came to back him up. Also, for TopGun to suggest I am new to the Afghan civil war topic area in the category of which the article in question was placed is quite ... well. JCAla (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait.. that apology was supposed to be to the new editor, not you... and also, alleged Nangparbat's support for me.. the guy is already banned and he and DS stalk each other... his edits are well expected... something not related to me! Stop accusing me with that. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yes with regards to the closure, sorry. Thank you very much, Salvio, for your time checking everything and also for your explanations. :) JCAla (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Editor review

This is going to really hurt your eyes, but could you please review the contributions of User:Vettakkorumakansnehi at Talk:Nair, if you have the time. (You will need quite a few minutes!) If not, could you pass this request on to another admin who is familiar with the caste sanctions stuff? Qwyrxian is involved, btw, and so can do nothing. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, the user placed a {{help me}} tag on their talk page, complaining about myself and Q. Blade saw it, checked what was going on and imposed a 6 month article ban. Although for reasons that I am not sure of, someone has since raised the entire farrago at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Vettakkorumakansnehi. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have read the thread and don't understand why it was brought up on WP:ANI... Not that it matters, really, since Blade had already done the needful by then. Well, finally someone else has edited WP:GS/CASTE. I was feeling alone there... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Your post here coincided with VS going off on one in the ANI thread. This could run, you know. Re: the log, I am sure that someone else has issued a ban before it existed but am blowed if I can find it. Which probably goes to show how useful the log will become.

I am also hoping that User:Sitush/Common may come in handy in future and will continue to develop it. If nothing else, it enables decent edit summaries. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Kulin Kayasthas - Consistent discrepancies and edit war

I would like to bring to the notice of administrators that this page has been a subject of edit war consistently. I believe, such disputes must be resolved through discussions. Defending one particular source, and holding the view that it is the only reliable one (that too by one individual), and consistently reverting any new addition from other reliable sources, without trying to arrive at a concensus, is also an act of systematic and tactical vandalism. When so many people stand up and share the same concern, it must be addressed. We all know, caste information are sensitive and such issues must be handled with care. Why should there be such gross discrepancies within two similar articles within Wikipedia? Why should related article on Guhathakurta state - "To protect the Brahmins, five Kshatriya came with them", and the same will be stated as "five Shudra servants" in this article on Kulin Kayastha? Doesn't this question the reliability of sourcing within Wikipedia community? This literally amounts to misleading people about facts. Is it only about defending one particular source under the garb of policies and getting into an edit war? This is not expected from a platform like Wikipedia, and I would like to request you to look into these issues seriously. Calcuttan (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Calcuttan and welcome to Wikipedia! To determine what varna the Kulin Kayastha belong to is what we call a content dispute; these controversies are usually resolved using one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution methods, which, mainly, involve discussing the issue until a consensus emerges. Admins are supposed to help with behavioural problems, for instance edit wars, but have no special power when it comes to disagreements regarding the content of Wikipedia's articles: they may chime in with their opinion, but they do so in their capacity as editors and not as administrators. In this case, I suggest you discuss the issue on the article's talk page and, if it's impossible to resolve it there, you then may try to start a thread here — this is a noticeboard where editors evaluate if a source can be considered reliable according to Wikipedia's standards. I know it is difficult to understand the inner workings of Wikipedia for a new users, so, if you need help learning the ropes, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page at any times. Happy editing. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance and advice. Calcuttan (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

• Op-ed: A call for editorial input in developing new Creative Commons licensing

• News and notes: "Mystical" Picture of the Year; run-up to Wikimania DC; RfA reform 2012

• In the news: Wales enters extradition battle; Wikipedia's political bias

• Recent research: Edit war patterns, deleters vs. the 1%, never used cleanup tags, authorship inequality, higher quality from central users, and mapping the wikimediasphere

• WikiProject report: Summer Sports Series: WikiProject Athletics

• Featured content: A good week for the Williams

• Arbitration report: Three open cases

• Technology report: Second Visual Editor prototype launches

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Oversight probably needed

[8] I doubt this IP is this person, what with the IP being on the other side of the world from Exeter. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that edit summary warrants oversighting, but I'll ping the functionary mailing list to hear their opinions; in the meantime, I have revdeleted it. Thanks for reporting. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

About time, I reckon

		The Original Barnstar
		They do not come better than the original - anything else is the movie of the book etc. And as the Original says, "This barnstar, the first on Wikipedia, is given to recognize particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated." It is, very much. - Sitush (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Pattern of stalking hounding and by-passing consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Now if you combine this with the last report which you thought was in a vacuum, you'd know that this is a continued pattern of what I reported before the IBAN:

• Incivility: [9]

• Never edited before (Nangparbat sock had a single edit then, no "sock excuse" here): [10]

• Further hounding in support of vandal (or in the very least an IP making really poor edits): [11] [12]

And then this essay, there's only and only one way DS can find it... stalking contributions! - he nominated it for deletion. And if you read the content, there's nothing pointy in there, actually all good suggestions and civil notes one what should actually not be done and any reasonable person would agree with. See also the deletion discussion. And another editor who has previously followed my edits and regularly jumps in to support anything at ANI against me calls the contributors "friends of NP" [13] (and again in the deletion discussion). That is very blunt.. the essay even itself is not about the banned user, but how new users are treated in the topic area. Also that DS and DBX have both reached this obscure essay, either both of them were stalking the edits or there was some canvassing involved. DbigXray has been told a number of times at ANI/WQA to stay away from me.

Need to take a look. The point is not whether he nominated it on a reasonable basis, but why is he following my contributions (and yes, as you said, just to revert me and nominate anything I contribute to for deletion).

DS has also nominated [14] a template for deletion in a very short period for the third time after being kept because he couldn't get consensus [15] [16]. The same thing was done at Inter-Services Intelligence article RFC which was started four (or five?!?!) times and each time consensus was to exclude what DS proposed (and was closed by atleast 3 admins). DS then by passed consensus and created a content fork which was AFD'd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter-Services Intelligence support for terrorism. Now he's created two more articles on the same (Inter-Services Intelligence activities in Afghanistan‎ & Inter-Services Intelligence support for militants) with the same content he couldn't get consensus for at the main article and I did not edit there so as not to get hounding accusations my self. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I actually think the essay is a clear occurance of harassment against Darkness Shines, as it is very clear to whom the what ... Nangaphobia ... is meant to refer. Additionally, given that all the dozens of sock IPs and accounts were actually Nangpabat the name is completely misplaced as it infers that DS was suffering from some kind of paranoia when it fact Nangparbat's dozens of socks are a reality. Also WP:DENY. The essay therefore qualifies for speedy deletion. After all those warnings, still the creation of such a clear pointed attack essay ... meanwhile Darkness Shines has been trying to bring forward the mediation.[17] My 2cts. No further bickering from me, don't worry. JCAla (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That essay does not mention or refer to DS. Many editors do the same thing to new users - with that very reference. Anyway, that is not the dispute here... the dispute is stalking and hounding. Let's not discuss it here. Let him respond this time. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Can all these accusations of hounding stop now please. I mailed Sal roughly an hour before I nominated the attack page for deletion. I also said how I got there. As for History of Pakistan AN3 is on my watchlist. And that IP editor was not a vandal, his sources were good solid academic ones. I often go look into content disputes from AN3 as can be seen in my contributions. I request TG refrain from these constant allegations, the most of the articles I have ended up on which he edits is due to Nangparbat always editwarring on them. I will leave it at this, Sal should you require further information please mail or use my talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ruderow wants your attention

Please see this edit re: dispute resolution/unblock. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have unblocked him, hoping this will be a good idea... And many thanks for the barnstar! I really appreciated it (and, to tell the truth, I did need it! ). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"All changed, changed utterly"

"All changed, changed utterly: A terrible beauty is born." - let's take you motto of the day as a starting point. When I asked you a while ago to consider unblocking an editor with a difficult history, and you tried, - who would have thought that his precious beauty would appear on the Main page? Not me ;) - Did you know that you are an awesome Wikipedian (29 March 2012)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gerda. To be honest, I'm glad to see that the editor who shan't be mentioned is creating high-quality content; I'm quite happy he was unblocked! Thanks for adding me to the list of awesome Wikpedians: I really appreciate it. And that gem is truly magnificent! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Beacon Center of Tennessee

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Beacon Center of Tennessee. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xoje007. Thanks! ⇒TAP 10:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

Does this edit comply with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE? Would like third opinion. Mar4d (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

And also this.. Mar4d (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

DS has been blocked as a result of those two edits. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ronnie Ricketts

Why do you have to delete Ronnie Ricketts' wiki page?

I am sorry, but I do not recall deleting such a page; I have tried looking for a deleted article about Ronnie Ricketts, but could not find any. Are you sure I deleted it? Could you provide a link to the page that contained the article or to the log entry that indicates that I was the one who deleted the page? Or, at least, point me to the editor who created the page? I am sorry, but you have not given me enough information to help you — I have deleted almost 7000 pages since becoming an admin here... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

replacing logo

HiYa

guess i was unintentionally doing something in the wrong way.

have been trying to correct some errors on the fair trade association web page.the main one is the logo. the one shown is the logo of a separate, but in the past a connected organization. have had complaints of incorrect logo use - not sure who put the wrong one up. the complaint originated from the facebook version of the article.

anyway .. in this process, have found a previous personal account, which i am now logged into to ...

will try to substitte the correct logo (its loaded up now) but have been stymied by the wiki processes/rules, which i have not been able to navigate.

thnx for help.

bob

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia! The problem was that the username you had chosen gave the impression you were editing on behalf of a group, which is not permitted; with this username, you will not be blocked. I see that you have succeeded in changing the logo; if you need further help, please feel free to drop a message here and I'll try to help you, if I can.

Regarding Wikipedia's rules, they are complicated to follow even for experienced users; the first page you ought to familiarise yourself with is WP:BESTCOI, which contains the best practices for editors with a conflict of interest. Those are the most important rules for you to follow; the others will come in time. Don't worry too much about it. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Yes, I got the correct logo in place -- will read through BESTCOI, cheers. Now there are warning messages on the page - is there something I need to do to alleviate the concerns raised ..not sure what next .. thnx again .. bob

The two templates on the page are designed to let us know what problems there may be with an article; each of those warnings places the article into a special category — for instance, {{unref}} places the article in this category. There are various Wikipedians who patrol those categories and try and improve articles and, so, those templates are very useful to us. In this case, the former template on the page asks for third-party, reliable sources, such as newspaper articles dealing with the Association, to support the material that's included in the page. The latter, on the other hand, is designed to alert us that someone editing the article has a conflict of interest.

Now, if you want to alleviate the concerns raised, the best thing you could do is add reliable sources to the article... Happy editing! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ryan's RFA

You know, reverting this just shows the anti-IP bias we have on WP. If that question had a signed in editors signature attached to it you'd have never reverted. You'd have used a talk page. Your IP bias is a bit sad (well worrying is a better word). Nevertheless, I have refactored it. 86.150.68.109 (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Salvio, thank you for your protection in removing that question; however, I chose to reply to it to address the concerns raised. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd still like to hear if Salvio would have reverted it with such brusqueness if it had been a logged in editor. I suspect not. As for your confusion that it is unacceptable for people to challenge belief systems that are religious, yet merrily accept a challenge to your belief system on paid editing on a website, you've gone down a lot in my estimation Ryan. Beliefs are beliefs, and they're all as valid (or indeed not) as any other. It's disappointing that you feel it is not acceptable to challenge them. Cherry picking, I'm afraid. 86.150.68.109 (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Parts of your question were basically nothing but trolling ("childishly naive", "tooth fairy"); so, yes. I would probably have reverted such a question even if it had been asked by an established editor. To tell you the truth, I also considered blocking you, as the question you posed was needlessly inflammatory. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

• Analysis: Uncovering scientific plagiarism

• Op-ed: Representing knowledge – metadata, data and linked data

• News and notes: RfC on joining lobby group; JSTOR accounts for Wikipedians and the article feedback tool

• In the news: Public relations on Wikipedia: friend or foe?

• Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: Burning rubber with WikiProject Motorsport

• Featured content: Heads up

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, motion for the removal of Carnildo's administrative tools

• Technology report: Initialisms abound: QA and HTML5

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

So tell me

Still think he is a "good admin"? Gets involved in an edit war wit ha user on ANI and then blocks him[18]. Yep, Magog never lets personal feelings cloud his judgement. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that's it, I'm taking this issue to ArbCom. This is both contribution stalking and a thinly veiled attempt at forum shopping. Darkness Shines has repeatedly shown he is not capable of editing in this community. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

LMAO, having ANI on my watchlist is stalking now is it? And asking an admin how he feels about this after your last piss poor block of myself in violation of wp:involved is forum shopping? Given his failure to abide by policy and unblock me? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

@Salvio, pardon me if I was a bit histrionic on this page here today above. I was a bit out of line. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't sweat it, Magog. Hey, everyone loses his temper sometimes. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deaths in 2012

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deaths in 2012. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship/2011

Just one question for you.How did you encounter that I had blanked the page as courtesy ? P.S. It was my test-edit without being logged-in. 59.161.24.24 (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The page was on my watchlist, so your change appeared there. As I wrote in my edit summary, if you want to blank your RfA, that's perfectly acceptable; however, the page you were blanking is just a log of every person who has run for adminship... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ruderow discussion

Hi, you unblocked Ruderow in a couple of weeks ago on the basis that they would pursue dispute resolution regarding Kulin Kayastha. This seems not to have happened but instead an IP has appeared at the article and is performing identical edits to those previously made by Ruderow. I've just left a sanctions warning for the IP. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Er, yikes! It seems that they did initiate a discussion! Sorry about this - their notification passed me by, and it was closed for technical reasons. - Sitush (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, the discussion was closed for technical reasons and Ruderow has not edited since, apparently. And, for what it's worth, the IP seems to be technically  Unrelated. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

• Special report: Reforming the education programs: lessons from Cairo

• News and notes: Russian Wikipedia blackout; WMF tools; Wikitravel proposal revisited

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Football

• Featured content: Keeps on chuggin'

• Arbitration report: Three requests for arbitration

• Technology report: Optimism over LastModified and MoodBar, but change in clock time causes downtime

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Magog and personal attacks

He has twice restored this attack were he calls me a bigot[19] He knows full well how I feel regarding this insult given I was recently blocked over it. Please do something. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to ask a clerk to remove that personal attack. That's the only suggestion I can give you... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you please take a look at my comment on Magog's talk which he now has hatted as "off topic"? Saying an editor's edits are always "blatantly bad", or "let's get him the hell off the back of the community" or "his ability for introspection is shot" are generalizing ad-hominem attacks against an editor and show that there is no neutrality whatsoever towards that editor. JCAla (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Now don't be silly, here, JCAla. Even assuming your post was on topic, what is he going to do or say? It's my talk page and I have the right to do anything I like with it, including removing your post outright simply because I don't like it (I'm a bit disappointed in you that you think you have the moral or de juris right to tell someone else how to run his own talk page, and that's fairly indicative of the way this whole mess got started, with people fussing over minutiae that don't really concern them).+ That aside, your post was not on topic, but I'm not going to talk about that because I really don't want to get into a wikilawyer-fest about how I organize my own talk page. Suffice to say, if you have an issue with something I've done, you can bring it up at the appropriate forum or at another section on my talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand. I don't want him to check out you hatting it - I don't really care if you do that or not. I was asking him to read the content of what I wrote. You know, this could be very easy between you and me. We two are involved in a conduct dispute which cumulated in me seeking arbitration. You made your unpleasant opinion about perceived personal characteristics (ad hominem) clear and that you want me off wikipedia in case of which you are "in for a party". Bearing such feelings towards any editor makes oneself involved, and as such you should not act in an administrative capacity against me. Privilege bears responsibility. One being to gain self-awareness. We can both contribute to this project without getting into each other's ways. Can you respect this? JCAla (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to cross-talk on Salvio's talk page: it's just not polite. Please direct any questions you have toward me to my talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Look, I have explained this all in detail to you before on your talk. You replied by personal attacks and lecturing. That's when I decided not to engage in any discussion with you on your talk anymore as there is no sense in listening to your attacks. If you have any new answer to my request, please contact me on my talk page. JCAla (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

JCAla, I fear I have to agree with Magog, here: there is very little I can do, considering I'm only an admin, just like Magog. If you think he's WP:INVOLVED when it comes to issues regarding you, the first thing you should do is discuss with him. If the answers you receive are not satisfactory, then you can ask the community, on AN, to declare that he's involved. The alternative is to wait until he acts in an administrative capacity and, then, appeal his decision, arguing he was involved. If you want my opinion, I believe Magog appears to be involved, but right now this makes little difference... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess I hadn't made that clear. I'm not taking any administrative action toward anyone in the India-Pakistan dispute at this point. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Question

Can I still mail you regarding suspected sockpuppets? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: yes. Long answer: if there reasons that justify contacting a checkuser privately, then go ahead. Otherwise, I'd say it's better to file an SPI, because it allows us to keep track of the various socks a given master has operated. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

We do not know the master, recall Highstakes/I am agent X Darkness Shines (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that! In that case, you can open an SPI for the latest sock or, if you don't want to let him know what alerted you that he could be operating a new sock account, send me an e-mail. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You got mail, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Book:Editor war

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Book:Editor war. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Please...

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Mar4d (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC) No doubt another hounding allegation, see [20] the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Yep, it's about that article and, to tell you the truth, I tend to agree with Mar4d that, in this case, you gave the impression of having followed him there — which does not mean you actually did it, but merely that this is the impression I, as a neutral observer, get. On top of that, there is the issue of the inappropriate speedy tag. As you know, I don't like to block people out of the blue, so instead of doing that I'll give you a choice: if you edit the article again, I'll block you for a week for the reason I indicated earlier (giving the impression of hounding the other editor). If you think some sources are not reliable, you may start an RSN thread; but, for the moment, please refrain from editing the article. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Point me to the deletion review discussion before saying the speedy was inappropriate. Following internal links is not hounding, or did mar4d "hound" me to the article I created Rape in Pakistan? I do not think some sources are unreliable I know they are self published. I will not be bullied again over bullshit allegations, the sources are junk. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC) WP:G4 requires not only that an article has already been deleted after an AFD, but also that the new version is just like the old one; and it is not usually used when the deletion discussion is that old... That said, your behaviour here appeared inappropriate and I am giving you a chance to avoid being blocked. If you do not take it, then you leave me no other option... Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Fine, the bullshit wins the day again. I will not edit the article, another great choice by you. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Right I am no longer posting form my phone so I can actually get this down right. The article was created 5 July 2012‎ I found my way there ten days later if I was hounding then do you not think I would have gotten there a little sooner? As for sourcing, it is on your head if this article makes the front page, here is what Mar4d reverted in even after I posted on the talk page before I removed it that it was sourced to a WP:SPS These are highly contentious things to say and here is what it is sourced to For Whom the Bell Tolls: America or the Jihadists? Trafford Publishing The other source is just as bad, [21] published on a personal website. I will also point out the following, you said stop the blockshopping yet fell for it hook line and sinker. So is this also hounding? Rape in Pakistan created 21 June 2012‎ by myself, 25 June 2012‎ Mar4d turns up. I create Partition riots in Rawalpindi Mar4d nominates it for deletion. So is he hounding me? I am sick of people running to admins because I actually had the cheek to follow internal links and found they had messed up on an article. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC) One last thing, per WP:HOUND after this fiasco and this gross misrepresentation of a source[22] Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." I see little option but for random checks in future to prevent such violations of policy, I expect of course you will do this so as to stop the blockshopping and allegations of hounding. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Don't try to get away with the false impression that "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy" is some sort of moral obligation on you or something which you're the custodian of. Self-reflection is good once in a while, need I point out some examples? You got blocked for one recently, it starts with G and ends with stan. Mar4d (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Your excuse to label a whole article "bullshit" and nominate it for speedy using incorrect criteria on the basis of an alleged SPS is just ludicrous. I've made my point, go make your case on RSN. I go through each source before adding it and I find this one reliable enough... if required, the statement can be attributed at the very least. I don't know why you keep bringing up the Rape in Pakistan article, I can't see any edits made there.. unless you're referring this single edit four days later where an external navigation template was added. Big deal. As for your other example, get to the point... "Partition riots in Rawalpindi" was not even the title of that article when it was nominated, it was Rape of Rawalpindi. This is what "Rape of Rawalpindi" looked like before it was nominated to AfD: a poor one-liner, single-referenced stub. That article was created on 12 April. I nominated it on 31 May. Hounding? Yeah right. Go check the AfD btw, RegentsPark initially !voted delete too, the consensus overturned only when other users came along and actually expanded it and the article was renamed. And you had no role in either the AfD discussion or the article expansion. In short, you've jumped the cliff here. Don't resort to parrot points in order to make some sort of justification here. Just mind your own business. Stay away from that article and stay away from me. Mar4d (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2)DS, the problem is that you always seem to find a way to these pages. Yes, you have a "reason" for each time you get there, but after so many times, it starts to become a pattern, and it looks like you are waiting for an excuse to find your way to that page.. Also, these are not unambiguous violations of policy, or else the edits would not have been controversial. The fact that you're not able to recognize your editing problems after so many people have told you they exist (including countless administrators) speaks poorly for you. Finally, if anyone has been running to admins, you are just as guilty as anyone (you always seem to have an excuse for that too, but they are no more credible than your excuses for always finding a way onto the pages of those who disagree with you). Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC) There is a surprise, Magog running to help his fan club out again. How many blocks did you dish out to me because you assume I am a "bigot"? Which edits do you think are controversial then? The use of SPS or removing them? And yes, using WP:SPS is a violation of policy. @Mar4d in 7 days I will check that article and if you have not fixed it I will. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Your response consists almost entirely of ad hominems, which I will ignore. As for SPS, you know very well that this isn't unambiguously a violation of SPS. If they were, then why are you being told to knock it off by Salvio? Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC) I came to the article because of this topic here. I had to remove some source misrepresentations of a BBC article which makes no use of some of the words ("proxy", etc.) worked into the article to further a political pov. Also, the Bangladesh Liberation War circumstances are highly misrepresented in the article which might be due to the SPS mentioned by DS. I have not checked the content with regards to the other countries mentioned in the article. But if there is similar source misrepresentation going on there, it would be troublesome to have the article make the front page in its current state. Just 2cts. JCAla (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC) (ec)Your First post was naught but Ad Homs, and I find myself unsurprised that you would not give a response to my question regarding your crap blocks of myself. Sal has not told me to knock it off, he has told me to post on the RSN board and to avoid the article for a week. In a week I will have to go fix the article, you obviously care more about attacking me than fixing Mar4d;s policy violations. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC) @JCAla: This is from the Mohammad Najibullah article: "India, which supported Najibullah as a proxy against Pakistan, strongly condemned the public execution of Najibullah and began to support Ahmed Shah Massoud's Northern Alliance in an attempt to contain the rise of the Taliban". Also, it is a widely known fact that Najibullah's communist regime was widely unpopular. India supported Soviet foreign policies in Asia, and was alone in providing support to Najibullah's regime. It had diplomatic presence in Kabul while all Western and Eastern European countries withdrew theirs. [23] Mar4d (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC) You want to justify a source misrepresentation by pointing to another wikipedia article? Source wikipedia to wikipedia? Also, even in the Najibullah article, the sentence constitutes a source misrepresentation. The source used there - which is lousy - doesn't say so either. But back to the true issue, the source you used on "India and state terrorism" - this BBC article - to back up the content you added doesn't use several terms and formulations which you worked into the article to further a political pov. As one example, the BBC article states: "A decade later, [India] continued to back the Communist-regime of President Najibullah, while Pakistan threw its entire support behind the ethnic Pashtun mujahideen warlords, particularly the Islamist Gulbuddin Hekmatyar." You made out of it[24]: "[India] supported the unpopular Communist regime of President Mohammad Najibullah as a proxy against Afghan Pashtun warlords and Pakistan." This is troublesome not only because of the source misrepresentation ("proxy", "unpopular", "against Pakistan") but it is partly factually incorrect also. Najibullah i. e. was supported against mujahideen from all ethnic groups, both Pashtun and non-Pashtun, against those backed by Pakistan and those not backed by Pakistan. Also, India historically had good relations to several Afghan governments predating the communist period which went beyond the issue of Pakistan. You reduce the relationship to 'supported as a proxy against'. JCAla (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Lol Salvio, hope you have a similar kind of offer for JCAla and now DBigXray who just turned up there [25] to revert me like the previous pattern of their edit histories. This is tag teaming in addition to hounding. And again [26]. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC) TG knows very well that Salvio's Page is on my watch with all these discussion above on the POV article, yet he deliberately accuses people of hounding, As explained on the arbcom's case on TG's tactics but alas "Some people never want to learn". all the best on Block shopping, hope you do succeed someday, cheers.--DBigXray 11:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC) The fact that Salvio's talk page is on your "watch" (as you claim) still does not give you a valid excuse to butt into places where you don't belong - that too, for getting involved with (and opposing) a user with whom you have a less-than-pleasant history. In fact, you would probably do everyone here a service by staying away from that article as much as possible. Mar4d (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC) WOW more Spiritual knowledge from a person blocked for hounding other editors, by the way MAr4d why dont you respond to JCAla's comment above ? I am still waiting for an answer from you on your continued policy violations and source misrepresentations for a pretty obvious motto. --DBigXray 12:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

• Special report: Chapters Association mired in controversy over new chair

• News and notes: WMF enacts reforms at Wikimania; main page redesign; 4 millionth article milestone

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: French WikiProject Cycling

• Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations

• Wikimania: Young chapter shows experience beyond its years

• Featured content: Taking flight

• Technology report: Tech talks at Wikimania amid news of a mixed June

• Arbitration report: Fæ faces site-ban, proposed decisions posted

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Barely back from his block, Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs) is already violating the terms of his topic ban. See his talk page, where I have left a post. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean we get YellowMonkey back? :( Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

We can dream. The whole India thing is just becoming farcical nowadays, although at least we haven't yet had a Rajput @ Twitter article. - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll bet Bieber's drv is still a zoo... stopped looking. I know just enough about the caste articles to never touch one again. Anywho, YM's Pham Ngoc Thao is on the main page Tuesday; more eyes would be good. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ping me on Monday and I'll keep an eye on it. Unless I get stuck up a tree over the weekend. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request to have a restriction lifted. Thank you. Monty₈₄₅ 17:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Mail

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You got mail. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC) You can ignore the mail, DQ already blocked as an IP of Highstakes00 Darkness Shines (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC) However based on your actions above you may wish to comment on these edits. Because I am trying to get an article I created up to FA status Mar4d comes along with his usual[27][28] Why is it he is allowed to follow me around and cause disruption? He has done this on this article since he first followed me there. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC) I have not "followed", I have edited that article before and participated on the talk page like numerous other editors. Funny that you should complain. My comments on the FAC are constructive. If you want to call it "disruption", your choice, though I'll make it clear that I don't go around tagging articles as speedy deletion. Don't justify your previous edits under the garb of this excuse. Mar4d (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Revenge reverts/hounding

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[29] Just in response to my content dispute else where. I make a BRD revert and JCAla, soon after he interacts with me, comes there for the first time, to revert me. If you can really not take action on such hounding you should withdraw from administering these disputes. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC) TopGun did you forget telling Salvio that Mar4d had "canvassed" JCAla to that template [30] , So much for Block shopping. <sigh>--DBigXray 12:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Again BRD! Nevertheless, the discussion is on the talk page since a loooooong time. It would be better if you could take time to discuss there instead of crying hounding and BRD. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)That's unrealted to this and JCAla never edited this. Anyway, it's none of your business and you should stop cross talking. I'm not addressing you or talking about you. Stop putting rubbish in the reports. Let Salvio handle this. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC) TopGun, can you please give us all a break ONCE with your out of control, inappropriate and never-ending blockshopping?!! This is disruptive and unnerving. I have been involved with the discussions surrounding that template for forever.[31][32] I conducted one revert, as I completely agree with Vib on the issue. Maybe you, however, can explain why you reverted me here[33] although extensive discussions had taken place (inactive since days) on the article's talk page[34] in which none was able to present reliable sources terming either Najibullah (1992-1996) or Massoud (1996-2001) as "terrorists". I might note that you never took part in the discussion. That you tell Salvio he should either act on your request or go somewhere else when it was Salvio who repeatedly gave you chances to self-rv or otherwise correct mistakes instead of outright blocking you, is, well ... JCAla (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC) I don't need to explain anything to you anywhere. Read the edit summaries and follow them... and do not add unrelated incidents to reports. If I remember correctly, salvio specifically said that would be blockable in future. The only thing disruptive is your editing here... better if you don't reply to me in response to this. I really don't want to waste my energy in debating with you on the conduct dispute where you will never accept your fault. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Uhm ... hm ... yes, sir. If you don't mind, sir, I will make my exit out of this topic now. Btw, I think this kind of blockshopping caused much of the drama which evolved over time. JCAla (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC) "If you can really not take action on such hounding you should withdraw from administering these disputes." Who are you to decide. Salvio is a pretty neutral guy. I don't think that not even once a non-neutral admin has verified your age old hounding allegations. First DS, then DBX, then me, and now JCAla. Would you kindly stop? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well wishes

I hope you are soon feeling well and your health issues resolve favorably. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, My76Strat; you're very kind! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed yes. I hope you are soon feeling better. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User:IvanHR

Can you explain who this person is a sockpuppet of? I don't see a link to the user page from WP:SPI... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, I cannot. Here's what happened: while I was investigating this case of harassment, I checkusered Warhammer76 (talk · contribs). I could not determine whose sock he was, as he was using open proxies; I, however, was able to confirm that the person behind Warhammer76 was also operating HuHu22 (talk · contribs) and IvanHR (talk · contribs) and, so, I blocked them. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, near the end of the ANI report you have linked above is a concerning series of diffs posted by Direktor. At least one is outright encitement to skew an article (In my opinion) - Any suggestions on where to take it regarding that editor? I dont want to be dragging it out over various noticeboards. That they are already banned in some areas should not give them licence to encourage others to act on their behalf with no possibility of sanction. Correct me if I have got the wrong end of the stick. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI, User:Nemambrata has also been blocked as a sock of Warhammer76; I mentioned your name on the AE page but that case was closed moments later. bobrayner (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I actually ran a check on Nemambrata (talk · contribs), after reading that thread, but, unfortunately, the results I got were  Inconclusive. Well, not that it matters much: he's blocked anyway. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Question

Am I allowed to edit that article now? The SPS are still there. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Get well soon

		Mmm - Milk!
		A tall, cool glass of milk just for you! Milk somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a glass of milk, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Enjoy! Some milk to make you stronger so that you recover well. Get well soon--DBigXray 20:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Spread the goodness of milk by adding {{subst:Give milk}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia pay? The skeptic: Orange Mike

• From the editor: Signpost developments

• News and notes: Chapter head speaks about the aftermath of Russian Wikipedia shutdown

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Olympics

• Arbitration report: Fæ and Michaeldsuarez banned; Kwamikagami desysopped; Falun Gong closes with mandated external reviews and topic bans

• Op-ed: The future of PR on Wikipedia

• Featured content: When is an island not an island?

• Technology report: Translating SVGs and making history bugs history

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Semi-Edit Protect Request

Sorry to bother you again but the anonymous IP is back inserting "Greek-American" as opposed to just "American" again to the Maria Menounos article, your last 3 month edit protect you added expired last week and the IP is back --Wikiscribe (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

• Recent research: Conflict dynamics, collaboration and emotions; digitization vs. copyright; WikiProject field notes; quality of medical articles; role of readers; Best Wiki Paper Award

• News and notes: Wikimedians and London 2012; WMF budget – staffing, engineering, editor retention effort, and the global South; Telegraph's cheap shot at WP

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Horse Racing

• Featured content: One of a kind

• Technology report: Talking performance with CT Woo and Green Semantic MediaWiki with Nischay Nahata

• Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The South (band)

Jaketown22 (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hope you are well. About a year ago you deleted a page for a band called "The South". Here is the link for quick reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_south_%28band%29

At the time I think there was a number of objections that were objectionable due to there source. There are members of the band "The Beautiful South" that don't like what we are doing. Anyway, Since the page was set up the band now have been interviewed on a number of notable TV and Radio and newspaper articles, have finished work on their new album and it will be released in Nov this year through Universal.

The song "the entertainer" has had radio coverage in several counties in the UK and is available free from the bands new official site. Zoo records have also signed them on a 5 album deal (source: Music Week (press))

The band have played at several major festivals in the UK (http://www.thesouth.co.uk) including being featured on BBC TV Scotland (45 minute set to be broadcast on Saturday 4th August)

Dave Hemmingway, the lead singer has been in 2 major bands in the past; The Housemartins (who he foundered with Paul heaton and aka Fat Boy Slim) and then the Beautiful South, he has also previously released a solo album. Dave is famous in his own right.

Can you tell me what I need to do to get this page back up? I think 1 year on this must be reviewed again.

I'm new to wikipedia so any help would be massively appreciated.

Regards

Jake

Hello Jake and sorry for the delay. I have restored the article in question and moved to a subpage in your userspace, so that you can work on it without fearing that the article may end up deleted before you're through with it. The page is now located at User:Jaketown22/The South (band). I suggest you first familiarise yourself with these rules, to avoid investing your time in a fruitless effort, as articles about unnotable entities are deleted — and Wikipedia has a very specific definition of "notability" —. When you're done, just click WP:AFC here and the page will be reviewed by an experience user. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

India and state terrorism

FYI. Sorry to hear you're not well and hope whatever it is passes soon. --regentspark (comment) 14:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Darkness_Shines. Mar4d (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

• Op-ed: The Athena Project: being bold

• News and notes: FDC portal launched

• Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

• Featured content: Casliber's words take root

• Technology report: Wikidata nears first deployment but wikis go down in fibre cut calamity

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Martial Arts

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Editor roll back function question

Some time ago I rec'd this information from you:

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two days for edit warring and abusing rollback, as you did at Imidacloprid. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here [[User:Gandydancer|Gandydancer]] ([[User talk:Gandydancer|talk]]) 13:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's the only block I've ever rec'd and I consider this block to be a fine example of what's wrong with WP and a poster child for what not to have done in that situation. But I'm not here to complain about that incident but to ask if you removed my roll back function at that time as well. If you did, please restore it. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer. Salvio is unwell and not editing these days. I've restored your rollback privileges. Just don't use it for anything other than vandalism! --regentspark (comment) 15:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:RIB

So I'm going through and adding Shadowed Ribbons for those Barnstars that people use a Placeholder ribbon for, but I'm having a little bit of an issue trying to figure out which 6 yours is meant to represent. If you could let me know, that would be appreciated (and I'd be able to help flesh out your ribbon bar a bit!). I understand you're otherwise-prioritized these days, so a Talkback would be great when you get around to it. Achowat (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for your effort! I mainly use the placeholder barnstar to represent the anti-spam barnstars I have received, but also for a couple of "special" ones, such as the "Protector of the mouse award", the "The sweeper" and the editor of the day barnstars... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I made an Anti-Spam Shadowed ribbon (File:Anti-Spam Ribbon Shadowed.png), so hopefully that helps you out. As for the Personal User Awards, I'd be willing to build those for you, if you have a design in mind. Achowat (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I like the anti-spam ribbon very much and am about to add it to my userspace! Thanks again! Regarding the "special" barnstars, I think that if I were to propose a design for them, I'd be sort of usurping them, as I was not the one who created them in the first place (does it even make sense? )... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Coincidence?

Please check out this edit history and this user page. Zepppep (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Rfc on Youreallycan/Off2riorob

You may be interested in commenting on this this RfC. A prior decision you made to unblock this editor has been mentioned.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

• Op-ed: Small Wikipedias' burden

• News and notes: Bangla-language survey suggests the challenges for small Wikipedias

• Arbitration report: You really can request for arbitration

• Featured content: On the road again

• Technology report: "Phabricating" a serious alternative to Gerrit

• WikiProject report: Dispute Resolution

• Discussion report: Image placeholders, machine translations, Mediation Committee, de-adminship

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Update

I have just been discharged from the hospital — finally — and am now feeling much better, though I have not yet fully recovered. I just wanted to thank all those who have wished me well, both here and in private. I'll restart editing soon, though for the moment I'll try to take it easy and avoid drama. Again, thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back, wishing you good recovery! We try to take drama easy with donuts - but that may not be the best diet for you right now ;) (Did you see - on my talk - the "secret" that someone else was tempted to unblock PumpkinSky?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back!!

Enjoy some tranquility! :) Fresh vegetables, etc. ;) JCAla (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

High time

You got back you slacker. But you OK? Facts, not fiction (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

Hi. As you are a regular of WP:UAA, you are invited to participate in this RfC, which may influence the noticeboard. Have a good one. NTox · talk 08:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

• Op-ed: Wikimedians are rightfully wary

• News and notes: Core content competition in full swing; Wikinews fork taken offline

• In the news: American judges on citing Wikipedia

• Featured content: Enough for a week – but I'm damned if I see how the helican.

• Technology report: Lua onto test2wiki and news of a convention-al extension

• WikiProject report: Land of Calm and Contrast: Korea

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Mediation

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Mediation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

• News and notes: Tough journey for new travel guide

• Recent research: New influence graph visualizations; NPOV and history; 'low-hanging fruit'

• Technology report: Just how bad is the code review backlog?

• Featured content: Wikipedia rivals The New Yorker: Mark Arsten

• WikiProject report: From sonic screwdrivers to jelly babies: Doctor Who

• Discussion report: Sidebar and main page alterations; Recent Deaths; Education Program extension

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Soapbox and promoting personal beliefs

Ciao Giulano. First of all I hope and wish you are in perfect health.

I would like to remind you the user 23x2, whom you warned about the above (section title) in his talk page concerning the Nicosia article. S/he is now doing similar edits, together with another user, in the article Occupation of Smyrna adding logically incorrect information (placing a posterior intl traty as justification of a prior occupation) in the lead of the article. As the other user has already made several reverts, now the intervention of 23x2 can be seen as trying to force me to an edit war as this situation is not acceptable from an NPOV. I would appreciate it if and when you can have a look at this situation. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have left a message on his talk page; let's hope this is enough... In the meantime, feel free to undo his edit; I'll try to keep an eye on the article... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thank you very much. --E4024 (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

See the article and its talk page again, please... --E4024 (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I think that this is an improvement: 23x2 is willing to discuss the issue, instead of reverting the article. From this point forward, my suggestion would be to follow WP:DR... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

He may have improved but user:Masri145 is worse than ever: Blanking content, in order to hide info not compatible with his POV, and when reverted "lying" about sources, in the article Turkish invasion of Cyprus. As those users that follow the page instead of reverting his disruptive edit are going against me, I have felt obliged to enter into an avoidable revert course (although only once with him, as no one else did that). I wonder why people look into things from a "like-not like" angle, anyhow, that's complaining with you to relax my animo, but I request you to see the issue from an administer's and objective user's angle. Thank you very much and all the best --E4024 (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as an administrator, which means that I will only comment on the behavioural aspects of the controversy, I'll say that a couple of editors were engaged in an edit war, which should have been stopped using page protection and you all should have been directed to the talk page to discuss the issue. Now it's a bit too late, as all editors have stopped editing the article on their own, so page protection would be superfluous and a block punitive. That said, my personal perception (speaking as an editor, now) is that he is definitely trying to push a POV, although I must admit that I'm not really familiar with the topic at hand and, so, you should not take my opinion as Gospel truth. As an admin, I'm not authorised to ban him from editing the topic in question, only ArbCom and the community can, so if you think he should be restricted, you will have to start an AN thread. I'm sorry I missed it earlier — although, as I've already said, I think I'd probably only have protected the page, so the end result has not changed... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious editing on Pakistan: "Everyone's favorite lighthearted summertime topic: ... Rape victims"

I saw that you responded after User:Darkness Shines on the ArbCom case about Pakistan and India.

Given your familiarity with that case and your familiarity with ArbCom procedure, you would be a good administrator to review Darkness Shines's editing on Domestic violence in Pakistan and Rape in Pakistan and DYK.

Darkness Shines recently returned from a block for tendentious editing on Pakistan. He has now violated the indefinite 1RR restriction to which you two had agreed. 13:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course, page-watchers (especially administrators or ArbCommers or both) are welcome to help.

Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

• News and notes: World's largest photo competition kicks off; WMF legal fees proposal

• Technology report: Time for a MediaWiki Foundation?

• Featured content: Wikipedia's Seven Days of Terror

• Op-ed: Dispute resolution – where we're at, what we're doing well, and what needs fixing

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Nice to see you back again, hope your feeling better man. Facts, not fiction (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. I'm definitely feeling better — cortisone is my friend — and, so, am trying to ease back into editing and mopping here. And you? Any news? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a great deal new, it has been nice and quite for nearly a month as someone was on a break I got blocked for reverting Nangparpat, how funny is that Make sure you take it easy, let me know when you are up to it, I have a question about a sock which I should like to mail you about. Facts, not fiction (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

• From the editor: Signpost adapts as news consumption changes

• Op-ed: Fixing Wikipedia's help pages one key to editor retention

• In the media: Author criticizes Wikipedia article; Wales attacks UK government proposal

• Featured content: Not a "Gangsta's Paradise", but still rappin'

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Fungi

• Special report: Two Wikipedians set to face jury trial

• News and notes: Researchers find that Simple English Wikipedia has "lost its focus"

• Technology report: Mmmm, milkshake...

• Discussion report: Closing Wikiquette; Image Filter; Education Program and Momento extensions

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Re: [35] - Do you think this is David York, and should I move the page into that editor's archives? A reply there would be swell. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Tip has not replied yet, but the more I examine this guy's editing patterns, the more I'm convinced those accounts were operated by the same person. I'm going to leave a comment on the SPI page too, however. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

CU

Hi Salvio, I hope that you are managing to work your way through your current RL issues - I see that you pop up now and again but I miss your regularity.

I don't think that I've ever done this before but if and when you have the inclination would it be possible to check the status of the initial contributor at Talk:Caste#Comment by OrangesRyellow. There are some funny goings-on involving a small group of contributors at that talk page and at one or two others (eg:Talk:India). However, in this particular instance there is a more clear-cut suggestion of possible multiple account use and a smaller population of contributors. I am happy to email you with further details, and I've already sounded out Fowler&fowler - see User_talk:Fowler&fowler#Sock.3F - as they are among a group of people who think it likely that some sophisticated socking is going on. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Sitush! I'm feeling a bit better, though I have not entirely recovered yet, and so started editing Wikipedia again, as I missed it, while I was away... And you, how are you?

Regarding the CU request, feel free to e-mail me everything you've got and I'll be glad to take a look. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll try to pull some stuff together: it probably won't be a rock-solid as I would do for an SPI and indeed that is a part of the problem. But you can do with it as you think fit (which includes ignoring it, obviously). I'm pleased to see that things are improving but will lay off hassling you as best I can - it has been getting a bit tricky because I am finding that the small number of admins with experience of the area are either unwell, off on a break/subject to limited on-wiki time or involved!

That, plus an excess of enthusiasm from the civility police, rather vexed me recently and although I am back editing, it is intermittent. I have a couple of projects up my sleeve, though, and hopefully they will enthuse me once more. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cumlord69

Just so you know, I have countered your result on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cumlord69, as I ran the same check at the same time. You might want to drop me an email about it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Replied to your email. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/City population templates

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/City population templates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

User: 200.7.193.243

I'm having some trouble with this. I changed the block settings of the IP to cannot access own talk page for their comment on the talk page (after already being warned of personal attacks). I then reverted the comment. After that, I wanted to rev/del their edit and mine, but (a) I've never done it before, (b) the warnings are dire, and (c) I wasn't sure what options to pick. So, can you please help? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd be glad to. You have to click on the history tab and, then, tick the box next to the revision you want to delete; then, click on the "del/undel selected revision" button, on the right. Now you should be on this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A200.7.193.243&action=revisiondelete&ids[513253443]=1 (sorry, no wikilink). You can delete a. the the text of the revision (which means that the IP/account which made the edit and the edit summary will still be viewable, but only admins will be able to access the content of the diff), b. only the edit summary (so that the IP/account which made the edit will still be visible and any editor will be able to access the content of the diff) or c. the IP or the account which made the edit. You can choose to delete both the diff and the edit summary or both the edit summary and the IP which made it and so on. In this case, I'd say you can delete both the edit summary and the content of the revision. Then choose "RD3: purely disruptive material" and you're done. I hope I was clear; if I wasn't, feel free to chastise me. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think I did it, and I think I know what my problem was. You can't rev/del the latest entry (I tried to do that before reverting the IP). So, after I reverted, I again tried to rev/del, but I mistakenly thought I had to rev/del both the IP's entry and my entry (so no one could click on prev). When I tried to do that, I got an error, but the rev/del of the IP's entry prevented a user from looking at "prev" for my entry, so it all worked out. Very confusing, but I suppose I'll get it with practice. Just out of curiosity, why R2 rather than R3? Oh, and thanks much for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, you can't revdel the latest entry on a page (you can, however, hide the edit summary and/or the IP/account who made the edit); that said, when one the two revision is revdeleted, the system will not display the relative diff to anyone who is not an admin (or an oversighter, if the revision was suppressed). Regarding the RD2/RD3 issue, RD2 would have been correct too. I admit I tend to use them in a somewhat interchangeable manner, because basically everything that falls under RD2 is also purely disruptive, even though I probably should not. As a rule of thumb, I personally prefer to use RD2 for insults which are targeted at named people and RD3 for all other manners of serious insult. I'm not sure it's the way the policy ought to be interpreted, but nobody has ever complained (as to quibble over such a technicality would be a waste of time, in my opinion)... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Got it - now all I have to do is remember it. Heh. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Salvio, if it's not too much of an imposition, I'd like another review of rev/deling I just did, whether I did it right, whether I should have hidden the editor's name (probably not considering the revert after), or any other comment, including whether I should have done it at all. I did it on two pages: User talk:Malik Shabazz/Talk and Talk:New Orleans. I did the New Orleans one after I did Malik's, which is why I did not hide the editor's name on that one. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You did the right thing, I would have revdeleted those comments as well (though I'd have left the username visible — not that it really matters as it was meant to be disruptive and, so, we can do without it showing up in edit histories). To nitpick a little, however, in my opinion, when you elect to hide a username, for consistency's sake, it's probably better if you also remove its mention in edit summary accompanying the subsequent rollback... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense - never worry about nit-picking with me; some people say nit-picker is my middle name. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

one other account

Thank you for the CU results on this case. I had mentioned this account but it wasn't mentioned in the results...is that a negative on him? Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

D'oh, actually no, he's a confirmed sock too; I just forgot to copy his account and paste him to the investigation page, because he was already blocked (I have a script that strikes the names of the accounts which are blocked and, in this occasion, given the amount of socks, somehow made me skip over it). Thanks for reminding me... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

NW's mark blocked script? I use that too. :) Cheers...now I just have to go check the dates and make sure we have oldest as named master.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

• From the editor: Signpost expands to Facebook

• WikiProject report: Action! — The Indian Cinema Task Force

• Featured content: Go into the light

• News and notes: Tens of thousands of monuments loved; members of new funding body announced

• Technology report: Future-proofing: HTML5 and IPv6

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

92.21.128.0/18

I just did this since it seems that MuZemike somehow messed up his block summary. I marked it as a checkuser block since that's what MuZemike did in his earlier block on this range. Since he's on break right now, can you take a look to make sure that that's correct? Thanks. T. Canens (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look momentarily. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it was meant to be a checkuserblock; it's a rather busy range, so it was also a good idea to make it anon. only. In short, you did the right thing. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

User Name

Hi Salvio, I looked at Jimbo's page and there seemed to be a lack of consensus on your suggestion. However I have little objection to changing to using my own name. In fact it offers quite a few advantages. I'm not sure that the user name policy is meant to cover company names that are based on your wiki name, but its a minor point. Victuallers (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to see your willingness to change your username!

Digressing a bit, I have always interpreted the WP:ORGNAME part of the username policy as a way to insure that a username does not give the impression a user is editing on behalf of a group, because that can cause all sorts of problems, and so a determination of what came first (the company or the username) is, in my opinion, immaterial, as long as such impression can be given... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Title

Ciao Giuliano. I hope you are in perfect health. I am only writing to you to ask if you have seen a message I left "upstairs". Please do not think I am forcing you for a reply or anything else, only wanted to make sure you saw it, as it was squeezed between other messages; sorry for taking this much of your time. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my delay in responding!

I had not noticed it, because I had been left another message in the meantime and, so, I unwillingly missed yours... I'll take a look, however. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Jamie Redknapp

Hi Salvio. Don't quite know what happened here but some vandal changed Redknapp's height to that of a dwarf do I corrected it to an old value. You then reverted it without explanation. No problems other than to advise that I'm not a vandal! Regards JRPG (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Erm, that was me messing up... I was browsing my watchlist and accidentally hit rollback. Thanks for reverting me and for letting me know. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

To a wise gentleman

Here, please have some tea as it is a Turkish custom to make conversation mostly with a glass of tea or a cup of coffee on the table. The Turkish Tea Culture helps a lot to the approachment between people and their ideas. (See the video, it begins in one language and continues in another for a magic reason.) Speaking of ideas, I appreciate your opinions... --E4024 (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I watched the video and that lady's enthusiasm was contagious: I now wish to read her book — she seemed so taken with the Turkish culture! — and I'd like to try Turkish tea — so far, I have only tasted Indian tea, which I love —... Actually, Turkey is a country I've been willing to visit for some time; I keep repeating She who must that I'll take her there, but we have not had the chance yet... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the interest. We may communicate by e-mail and have some tea or Turkish coffee after eating home food together. I was not aware of that TV series until you wrote me; I suppose it is a ref to your signora moglie. Mine is a good cook and used to watch, on BBC Prime, a series called "EastEnders" in which there was -I think- a (Cypriot) Turkish character also. ArrivederLa. --E4024 (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Rumpole of the Bailey was one my favourite TV series, when I was in Britain; I still enjoy watching it, from time to time... On the other hand, I've never watched EastEnders, because I have actually never been much of a TV fan; Rumpole (along with Blake's 7) was one of the few exceptions... And yes, She who must is the lady I happened to marry, but, like Hilda, she ignores her nickname... By the way, if you wish to e-mail me, you can user this page. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

• In the media: Editor's response to Roth draws internet attention

• Recent research: "Rise and decline" of Wikipedia participation, new literature overviews, a look back at WikiSym 2012

• WikiProject report: 01010010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 01101001 01100011 01110011

• News and notes: UK chapter rocked by Gibraltar scandal

• Technology report: Signpost investigation: code review times

• Featured content: Dead as...

• Discussion report: Image filter; HotCat; Syntax highlighting; and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Trucks

Bonjour Salvio giuliano, je suis le créateur de cette page ; fr:Portail:Camion, j'ai préparé un brouillon sur une sous-page de mon autre compte ; User:Argosy/sandbox, est-ce-que le contenu actuel est adéquat pour restaurer le Portal:Trucks ici, je sais qu'il y a eu ce débat ; Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Trucks avec la suppressions de ces pages ; Portal:Trucks, Portal:Trucks/Categories, Portal:Trucks/Intro, Portal:Trucks/Projects, Portal:Trucks/Related portals, Portal:Trucks/Selected article/1, Portal:Trucks/Selected article/2, Portal:Trucks/Selected article/3, Portal:Trucks/Selected article/4, Portal:Trucks/Selected article/5, Portal:Trucks/Selected manufacturer/1, Portal:Trucks/Selected manufacturer/2, Portal:Trucks/Selected manufacturer/3, Portal:Trucks/Selected manufacturer/4, Portal:Trucks/Selected manufacturer/5, Portal:Trucks/Wikimedia, Portal:Trucks/box-footer, Portal:Trucks/box-header, est-ce-qu'il y aurait encore d'autres pages qui seraient relier a ce sujet qui ont été aussi supprimées ? J'aimerais beaucoup crée ce portal sur Wikipedia en anglais, si vous croyiez que mon niveau de language est insuffisant pour faire un tel projet, je me résignerais a votre décision. Merci pour votre aide, cordialement. FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hy Franky, I apologise if I reply in English: I don't wish to be disrespectful, but, per Wikipedia:SPEAKENGLISH, the use of another language is discouraged. If you do not understand something I wrote, however, please ask and I'll be glad to translate it — although I have not written in French in a very long time, almost ten years, so I might make a couple of errors, sigh... —

I have taken a look at the French version of the portal and I must say that I like it very much. Congratulations! If you wish to create its English version, I can undelete the previous version and move it to your userspace, which is what we call userfication, to see if there is something which can be useful to you... To answer your question, I believe you have caught all subpages of the original portal.

Regarding your knowledge of the English language, I have to admit that certain parts of the page are not easily understood, unless one knows French and can work out what you meant. This is not a big deal, however: you can ask one of these people to proofread your translations. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Très bien, Salvio. Vos compétences continuent de me surprendre. Which translates as "Eich sgiliau yn parhau i rhyfeddu i mi" in the place where I've been spending an awful lot of time recently. I think: my French is poor, but better than my Welsh (I'll get my nephew to check it over). - Sitush (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, talking about French, there was this young French fille, I was madly in love with; living in different countries, we used to correspond quite a lot — real letters, I mean, not those fake ones people exchange telematically —. The best part was when we managed to spend a couple of days together, however... That's how I learnt French.

And I've never been to Wales... I hope you're there for something jolly, are having fun and are brushing up on you Welsh... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Salivio giuliano, is it ok recrate my userpace to go ; liste name count 2 ; User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Categories, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Intro, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Projects, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Related portals, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected article/1, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected article/2, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected article/3, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected article/4, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected article/5, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected manufacturer/1, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected manufacturer/2, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected manufacturer/3, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected manufacturer/4, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected manufacturer/5, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Wikimedia, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/box-footer, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/box-header. Thank you very much. Argosy (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I have userfied all those pages to your userspace; I hope they are useful to you. If you need anything, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Salvio giuliano, i finish in work for User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks, in now next rename to go Portal:Trucks, for me or for you ? thank Argosy (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Salvio giuliano. You have new messages at Thine Antique Pen's talk page.
Message added 16:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahsan007/Ahsanch12345

That was quick Looks like in may be Highstakes00 BTW. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I cannot explain why, but that will have to be determined only based on behavioural evidence, because the checkuser tool will be useless... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ya, he uses proxies the bugger. If you have a moment free can you check to see if this is Nangparbat[36] The edit summarys are very much like his. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not highstakes, look who did the next revert[37] Nang is the master of Ahsan007/Ahsanch12345 by the looks of it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, already checked. Ahsan007/Ahsanch12345 and the IP are technically  Unrelated: they edit from two different continents and have very different UAs. I suspected the very same thing you did, but apparently we were both wrong... I'll take a look at Memorex1987's edits as soon as I can. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ankaraman

I've just left a message for him after declining two odd promo tags. One was on Boleyn's stub about an English MP who died in 1575, and the other a one sentence about a radio DJ. I've sorted out another now - and then deleted it as an attack. I'll add to the message. Peridon (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

found more - think we've got the lot. An odd account. Spam links reverted in 2011, a bit in February, then from the 29th Sept (especially today) a bizarre rush of spam tags with a few notability tags thrown in. Compromised account or vandalism? I've gently suggested he stop tagging for spam. If he goes on, I'll block him. Peridon (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Very odd indeed! Especially today's edits... I don't know what to think of those: they are definitely disruptive, which means that if he doesn't stop a block is very much in order, but I'm not sure if that's vandalism, a compromised account or mere incompetence... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you have a look

Dear Salvio, can you have a look at this issue as you are familiar with the history. It would be very much appreciated! Cheers, JCAla (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For blocking user:Songwarior so quickly that I didn't have time to file the SPI. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's much appreciated! Although, to be honest, I was just lucky as I was checkusering Printout012345 (talk · contribs) and the guy was so kind as to volunteer his other sock... Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales

• News and notes: Independent review of UK chapter governance; editor files motion against Wikitravel owners

• Featured content: Mooned

• Technology report: WMF and the German chapter face up to Toolserver uncertainty

• WikiProject report: The Name's Bond... WikiProject James Bond

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Resoring Kohana (Web Framework)

There was a discussion about of the Kohana framework was notable. And the article was deleted. Time has past and the kohana community has grown. A book was released and even Frameworks that have been created out of Kohana like FuelPHP are on wikipedia.

I would like to officially request a undeletion since I think that kohana is notable enough to be on wikipedia. It's one of the larger frameworks in the PHP community. Would you please consider undeleting the article so we can update it?

Greetings Robert-Jan de Dreu

Dear Mr. de Dreu, first of all, let me apologise for my delay in replying: due to health issue, I have not been able to log onto my Wikipedia account as much as I'd have liked lately...

That said, since the article in question was deleted after a community discussion, I may not simply restore it. If you wish to have the page undeleted, you should ask for a deletion review — you can find out about it here. In short, the article was deleted because Kohana was deemed not to be notable enough in Wikipedia's sense; if things have changed in the meantime, meaning that Kohana has received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, then do feel free to start a deletion review; if you don't know how to do it, let me know and I'll do it on your behalf. In the meantime, however, I can userfy the article — basically, I'd restore it and move it to a subpage in your userspace, where you can work on improving it without having to fear that the page might be deleted before you are finished —, if you wish; to do so, however, you have to create a new account... Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

AE

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm taking this to your talk page because some threaded discussion may be necessary between us, for which AE doesn't offer a good format. Frankly, I find your latest posting there [38] insulting, but I'll make one last attempt at entering some sort of rational discussion with you. You say no sysop determined he should be blocked as a POV-pusher. It can either be that those admins are just incompetent and lazy or it may be that this is just a normal content dispute, where each side thinks he's right and the other is wrong. Frankly, I think the latter is more likely – You FIND IT MORE LIKELY???? This is just incredible. So, you are saying you didn't even bother to check it yourself? At that ANI thread, no admin imposed a sanction because none of them could be bothered to read the diffs. That's the whole truth. Well, actually, with one shining exception: Akhilleus did, and duly recognized what the facts were, but then apparently felt that that very fact stamped him as "involved". So, did you read those diffs? Here's my challenge to you: read the quotations contained in the first collapsed box at [39]. (Did you do so already? You obviously ought to have; if you didn't, do it now.) Then come back here and tell me, with a straight face, that you do not consider JCAla's misquoting were ipso facto blockable source falsification. The second challenge: read the article in the state it was in as I found it in May [40] (Again, you ought to have done so already, but apparently you haven't.) Read it from start to finish, or until the point where your disgust level makes further reading impossible. Then come back and tell me, with a straight face, that you do not consider it prima face evidence of disruptive tendentious editing. And here you are again lecturing me that the right course of action would have been an RFC. Incredible. And you have the gall to cite "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT" in my face? I told you why I didn't go for an RfC. You are the person who is not listening. An RfC would have been just another version of the same waste of time. I tried ANI, and (as I just showed you), nobody could be bothered to read the diffs. I tried the dispute noticeboard, and there was absolutely no response at all, zero, nada. What the hell would have given me reasons to expect that there would be any more useful feedback at an RfC? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC) The two diffs Fut.Perf. wants you to read are both very old. Both have nothing to do with the supposed violation Fut.Perf. brought forward at the AE. Both have nothing to do with the current content dispute. The issues are old, stale and have already been resolved. Old, stale and resolved disputes I told Fut.Perf. many times that there was no intentional source falsification. When I added that unlucky sentence, he talked about at ANI, in 2010(!) when I was very new, I was thinking about crimes as only on-the-ground crimes such as systematic kidnapping (which had been ordered by Massoud´s enemies), abuses, looting, murders, etc. And actually, that was the way the sentence quoted was explicitly used by the source. The quote was intented in that way. I, however, recognized that bombardment is considered a crime by some, giving a more recent example such as Obama´s drone strikes which are considered indiscriminate by some, Massoud´s troops have also been accused of indiscriminate bombardment. Even Fut.Perf. grasped the difference although coming to the wrong conclusion with regards to "lie".[41] Although in May I had reverted his removal because I wasn´t yet thinking about the bombardment, he had just hounded me from the image deletion discussion conducting several edits just to create trouble (such as removing the image against consensus[42][43]), and in his change he had falsified the source himself, I understood what was the problem eventually and the sentence was completely removed - just like Fut.Perf.´s own source falsification. It needs to be pointed out, that he never tried to talk to me about that issue on any talk before going straight to ANI. As pointed out at ANI by me, Fut.Perf. himself falsified the source by saying that the Ittihad-i Islami were Massoud's forces when they most certainly are the forces of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf and are explicitly described by the source as a "factional ally". There was more which is too much to repeat here now and which was clearly noted as a content dispute by many including admins such as DGG at ANI. For the version of the article in May 2012 - I had done nothing major on that article since early/mid-2011. You can see that the version of December 2010[44] is more or less the same as the version from May 2012. I had mostly reverted vandalism from there on. There were some small changes. When I was new to wikipedia and edited that article a lot I wanted to give a sense of how many Afghans perceive Massoud, I wasn't acquainted to encyclopedic tone yet and that is why I extensively quoted Afghans observers. However, besides two unlucky sentences, I gave very good sources for what I wrote. I then mainly started to edit on other issues being drawn more to India/Pakistan/Taliban issues and on the way learned how to edit properly. We encountered each other and you witnessed first hand that both DS and I have only strived to use the best sources available. I actually agreed and agree with Fut.Perf. that the Massoud article needs to be cleaned-up generally. It is however far from being "my article" or anything. Fut.Perf. has removed a lot of information that wasn´t even added by me. The clean-up needs to happen in a collaborative manner, not the way Fut.Perf. is doing it. Fut.Perf. has a general problem accepting the opinions of others as valid even if they constitute consensus. The closer of the image deletion discussion summarized: "S/he [Fut.Perf.] must not confuse arguments that are truly invalid with arguments that s/he merely disagrees with."[45][46][47] He portrays it as if he owns the ultimate truth while he has quite often misrepresented the sources. I can only once again give as the most prime example a case in which he again issued an attack against me ("blatant source falsification") while he alleged that Massoud was not part of the Rome Process.[48] Following up on that he recently stated: “ … the Rome Process, as a neutral, non-belligerent party, were holding parallel peace talks both with Massoud and the Taliban. Their proposal was not an anti-Taliban "alliance" (as JCAla has persistently tried to present it) but a "Loya Jirga" that would include the Taliban together with all other parties.”[49] The sources clearly identify the group involved in the Rome Process as planning to overthrow the Taliban and as involving Massoud. Sources "Abdul Haq had just come from Washington, where he and others had hoped to interest President George W. Bush´s administration in their plan to overthrow the Taliban. Abdul Haq was working in concert with a group that included Hamid Karzai; Zahir Shah, the former king of Afghanistan, who for years had lived in exile in Italy; and Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance commander." (Come Back to Afghanistan by Said Hyder Akbar/Susan Burton, p. 24) "In May 2000 delegations were dispatched by Zahir Shah to Washington D. C. and New York, USA, to discuss with US and UN officials how the Loya Jirga proposition (known as the ´Rome Process´) might be expedited. However, while Massoud was prepared to offer support to the process ... the Taliban themselves treated the proposal with the greatest caution. At the end of May former King Zahir Shah distanced himself even further from the Taliban than ever ..." (Far East and Australasia 2003 p. 72)) "A Loya Jirga Office in Rome would work under the council to plan and organize the loya jirga ... It would choose an interim government to replace the Taliban and organize national elections. ... Massoud recommended that the interim government selected by the jirga reestablish an Afghan army and prepare a democratic constitution." (The Wars of Afghanistan by Peter Tomsen, p. 567-572) "A group of Afghan leaders opposed to the Taliban [including Hamid Karzai and Abdul Haq´s brother Abdul Qadir] meet in Ahmed Shah Massoud's base in Dargad to discuss a Loya Jirga, or a traditional council of elders, to settle political turmoil in Afghanistan."(Corbis, 2000) “The central theme of the book is Edward's investigation into a major Afghan-led plan for toppling the Taliban: a plan which existed for two years prior to 9/11, and which had buy-in from senior tribal leaders, commanders within the military axis of the Taliban, possibly the Haqqani network, Commander Massoud and senior Taliban who were willing to bring about a new order. The ex King was to provide the 'glue' around which these different groups would coalesce.” (The Afghan Solution by Lucy Morgan Edwards) Current dispute Fut.Perf. removes thousands of bytes of information among them as one prime example that the Soviets launched nine offensives against Massoud that were defeated[50] and rewrites the lead completely.[51] The mass removal and rewrite is being objected to, the article is being protected.[52] What part of the removal is being objected to is laid out on the talk page. In the example of the nine Soviet offensives both DS and I provide reliable sources. In the case of a quote by Sebastian Junger I say it needs to be paraphrased instead of the information given being removed completely.[53] The article is being unprotected under the premise that any "complicated bits" – such as the lead issue and mass removal of content undoubtedly are – would be discussed on the talk page,[54] Fut.Perf. reverts to his favourite version removing the nine Soviet offensives, Sebastian Junger, and other information again without consideration of any of the input given by others on the talk about some parts of that removal.[55] Fut.Perf. on top of that tags Webster University Press as unreliable[56] although consensus on the talk was that it meets WP:RS.He also tags U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher´s government website as unreliable[57] although it was pointed out to him that the congressman is even a chairman in the U.S. Congress Foreign Affairs Committee. I revert him once, asking him to wait for the discussion to yield a result.[58] Fut.Perf. reverts again.[59] I do not revert again but ask Casliber to take a look.[60] Fut.Perf. makes this report. Fut.Perf. has previously been reported twice for edit warring on that article and warned to follow DR procedures.[61][62] The current edit wars are also about such normally completely uncontroversial issues such as adding the term "anti-Taliban leader". But Fut.Perf. again simply blanket reverts.[63][64] That the article needs improvement is beyond any discussion and it was me who started the overhaul some months ago.[65][66][67] I have shown my willingness to cooperate to get this article's quality up plenty of times.[68] But it seems as if Fut.Perf. is not interested in any cooperation. I am quite sure he wouldn't even have bothered to work on that article if it wasn't me who had edited it. This leads to the issue of the very problematic hounding history by Fut.Perf. against both DS and me in which he really tried to discredit everything about our editing and this still seems to be his main goal. Luckily you know more of our editing than the misrepresentation that Fut.Perf. has created. Please check as a prime example the story of DS's DYK which had been reviewed by many established editors but which Fut.Perf. after hounding DS to the respective article discredited completely including all the established editors.[69][70] I think your idea of putting us both on mandated external surveillance on that article is a good option to make the above mentioned obvious. Thank you for your fairness and regards, JCAla (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello again

It is my humble privilege to come and say hi, and to thank you for your support through the horrible time I had the last 6 months. As you see, I was graciously given another chance to edit and contribute. Thanks to you partially, Sal!——Djathinkimacowboy 18:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

My sincerest wishes for your health, Sal.Djathinkimacowboy 01:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Look who's here. Dja, welcome back! I'm really glad to see that you've been unblocked! I hope to see you around. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Danke, and remember Sal, se habla Yiddische. ;)~©Djathinkimacowboy 06:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/Abc

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/Abc. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

• News and notes: Education Program faces community resistance

• WikiProject report: Ten years and one million articles: WikiProject Biography

• Featured content: A dash of Arsenikk

• Technology report: The ups and downs of September and October, plus extension code review analysis

• Discussion report: Closing RfAs: Stewards or Bureaucrats?; Redesign of Help:Contents

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Trucks next

Bonjour Salvio giuliano, je suis désolé pour le dérangement, j'aimerais savoir si je peux faire le renommage de cette page ; User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks dans l'espace portal, puisque j'ai terminé mes travaux, à moins qu'il manque encore une information que j'aurais oublier de mettre. Merci beaucoup pour votre aide, cordialement. Argosy (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Salvio Giuliano, please delete to pages the liste ;

User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Categories, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Did you know, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Intro, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/News, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Projects, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Related portals, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected article/1, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected article/2, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected article/3, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected article/4, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected article/5, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected manufacturer/1, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected manufacturer/2, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected manufacturer/3, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected manufacturer/4, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected manufacturer/5, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected picture, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected picture/1, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected picture/2, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected picture/3, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected picture/4, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected picture/5, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected picture/Layout, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected picture/Selected picture/Layout, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected video, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected video/1, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected video/2, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected video/3, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected video/4, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected video/5, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Selected video/Layout, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Topics, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Wikimedia, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/Wikinews, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/box-footer, User:Argosy/Portal:Trucks/box-header, User:Portal:Trucks, User:Portal:Trucks/Selected video/4

Thank you very much. Argosy (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

 I have deleted all the pages you listed. Sorry for the delay. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

• Op-ed: AdminCom: A proposal for changing the way we select admins

• In the media: Wikipedia's language nerds hit the front page

• Featured content: Second star to the left

• News and notes: Chapters ask for big bucks

• Technology report: Wikidata is a go: well, almost

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemicals

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Problem IP at Tatars

Hi Salvio! There's a dynamic IP from Slovenia who has intermittently been trying to insert (pseudo)scientific racist typology into the Tatars article against consensus for several months now. Semiprotection has been tried before, but the IP keeps sneaking back every now and then to try to edit-war it in (already reached 3RR today). Would a rangeblock be more effective, do you think? Or is it better if I just continue reverting him whenever he pops up? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lothar, I have just anonblocked 46.122.0.0/17 for a month — this means that 46.123.115.130 is not included, but, otherwise, a rangeblock would have been impossible. I hope this is enough; should he reappear, please let me know and I'll consider long-term semi-protection... Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much! I'll certainly keep you posted if the problem persists. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks like he's now taking full advantage of the 46.123.... range [71]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not amused... So I've semied the page for a month. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again. Though I have the sinking feeling we've not seen the last of this one.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I have the same feeling... Well, semi-protection is cheap (and now the page is on my watchlist)... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Odd edits

I opened a discussion at Talk:List of Mudaliars#So what is this list.3F because something needs to be sorted out with that article. Precisely what needs to be done is the point that requires discussion. Anyway, an hour later Dramidan creates an account, heads straight to the article and starts cleaning a bunch of stuff out. They are taking one of the two lines of thought that I raised in the discussion and they seem to know what they are doing ... which suggests that they've seen the discussion. The timing is very weird, don't you think? I am concerned that someone may accuse me of socking. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, my suspicion is on an IP editor (223.235.119.3 and its surrounding range) whose edits I have been reverting for the past few days in various caste and blp articles. I guess, he should have tracked my edits, not yours. --Anbu121 (talk me) 21:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Good. Er, well, not "good" good but you'll know what I mean. I've been accused of socking on a few occasions, sometimes even at WP:SPI. Whether it is the 223.235.* IP or someone else, if that IP should turn up again and you need a hand cleaning up then just drop me a line. - Sitush (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This issue seems resolved... Sitush, if you have reason to suspect someone is acting in bad faith, trying to get you into trouble, however, let me know and I'll see if I can do something, using my magical CU powers... Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It does appear to be resolved. But it is possible that I am now gone anyway. The recent railroading, out-of-process ArbCom decision is just too much. I've been a bit unhappy anyway but the MF outcome may well prove to be the last straw. And it is a weighty straw, more so than umpteen others before it. "California" political correctness, general US bible-bashers, too many wannabe admins contributing sod-all content but throwing their opinions about at random - Amadscientist etc - do I really want to be involved with this? I need to think but my gut reaction is "no". And I do know for sure that this is a likely turning point for several others among the "top 400". Maybe it is just burn-out but I rather suspect not. I didn't sign up to a deal where consensus can be overturned by seven people. - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm astonished: I still don't understand how we got from a clarification request to a ban motion so quickly, but, then again, ArbCom seems to be reconsidering their decision and I think that's good.

My feeling is that Wikipedia has been slowly changing over time, moving away from the idea we try to be an encyclopaedia and adopting a more touchy-feely, "everyone's a winner" approach, where we welcome anyone in the spirit of "everyone can edit", regardless of their competence... I honestly don't know if this California political correctness — unfortunately, the "everyone's a winner" approach is getting more and more widespread in Italy too —, but I know that we should be less lenient with those who violate Wikipedia's content policies and less draconian on those who call the former out on it, even if they drop the occasional f-bomb... Now, to be honest, I don't feel Malleus is entirely blameless here either, but a ban was a gross overreaction.

Well, now I'm rambling... My point is that you are a very valued contributor and I'd be really sorry if you chose to leave Wikipedia, so I hope you'll reconsider... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

A pleading

Sal, I asked Sitush not to leave us. Sorry about being maudlin. Just thought you should know.~©Djathinkimacowboy 10:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you did the right thing, Dja! And I agree entirely with what you have written. I'm happy to see that ArbCom is reconsidering their decision, however... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I have checked my talk page history; sad to see you were blocked again... Goodbye, Dja. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Kolega2357

Thank you so much for letting me change the protection on the page. Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Capria

Who is this a sock of? There's nothing on the userpage or talk page that gives an indication. Ryan Vesey 22:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why would you like to know?

That said, I don't know who the master is: Bunogo Huntsman (talk · contribs) suddenly popped up on my watchlist, looked particularly suspicious and, so, I checked him; I still can't tell whose sock he is, but I saw that Capria (talk · contribs) was operated by the same person. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

His one comment was a !vote was to an RfA, I was curious if the master had also !voted. Ryan Vesey 14:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the RfA, master didn't !vote. But past is past. Sorry for nudging late. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 07:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yo

Sal, you got mail Darkness Shines (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

• Special report: Examining adminship from the German perspective

• Arbitration report: Malleus Fatuorum accused of circumventing topic ban; motion to change "net four votes" rule

• Technology report: Wikivoyage migration: technical strategy announced

• Discussion report: Good articles on the main page?; reforming dispute resolution

• News and notes: Wikimedians get serious about women in science

• WikiProject report: Where in the world is Wikipedia?

• Featured content: Is RfA Kafkaesque?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

an off-page response

Hey, Salvio, while it does make me a little sad that you're opposing, yours is a pretty decent reason for so doing, I suppose. Can I ask which questions you thought I was off the mark on? No badgering: I'd like to learn from it if I can. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Writ Keeper. First of all, congrats on becoming an admin; I remember how relieved I was when my own RfA ended.

Regarding the answers I personally did not particularly like, there were ## 9, 18 and 21 (plus, I really did not like your answer #16, but that is my personal opinion, because there was no right answer to that question). Regarding question # 9, you basically restricted your answer to civility and said you'd rather avoid acting; there are various conduct issues which are not related to civility, which warrant a block. One example out of many is WP:BATTLE; there are times when it is appropriate for an admin to block another user who is showing a battleground mentality and is disrupting a discussion. You may think that "conduct patrol" is not your cup of tea, but, as I was saying in my oppose, often controversies come looking for you and you end up with a dispute on your talk page and while it's true that an admin can never be forced to do anything, as we are all volunteers, we also have a responsibility to try and limit disruption to Wikipedia. But that was not a serious error; your answer to question #18 was more off the mark: while it's true that the blocking admin generally cannot decline an unblock request, they can always accept it, if they think the block is no longer necessary, for instance because the blockee understands what the problem was and promises not to persevere. Finally, regarding question #21, here is what I'd personally do: User:Sexygirl398 should be declined without action, as it's a perfectly fine username; User:DownwithWebclient101 should probably be a "wait until user edits"; User:WikiReviewBot should be a botublock; User:APPBLOGSTORE is never a "not serious violation" — depending on his edits, it can either be a spamublock or a softerblock —; User:AdminsNeedAEffingLife should be blocked without talk page privs, with e-mail disabled and a CU should be asked to run a check for sleepers — that's probably a long-term vandal... As I said during your RfA, however, the main problem, in my opinion, is your lack of experience dealing with content disputes and not your answers.

Well, happy mopping. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Dish Network Channels article deleted

This was a very useful article which someone obviously put considerable work into. I reference it often. May I ask why was it removed? and how it can be restored?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Dish_Network_channels_in_the_United_States&action=edit&redlink=1

68.191.188.162 (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Brian

Hi Brian, I was not the admin who deleted the article you refer to; I merely deleted a page which redirected to it, after the main article had been deleted. It was a merely technical action. That said, List of Dish Network channels (United States) was deleted after a community discussion, which you can find here. If you want the article restored, you should first ask the deleting admin on his talk page — in this case, Drmies (talk · contribs) —. However, before doing so, I suggest you read the discussion to see why many Wikipedia editors thought the article should be deleted. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Dov S S Simens deletion

why have you deleted the page of one of the greatest film-making instructors of all time???? A man who has been credited with inspiring Quentin Tarantino, Will Smith, Guy Ritchie and thousands of others. His internationally recognised 2 day film school has been taken by ten of thousands of students over 20 years.

The page was speedily deleted under SD criterion G11, basically because it was a shameless plug of Mr. Simens. If you wish, you can recreate the article, but please remember that you must comply with Wikipedia's rules regarding neutrality and notability — failure to comply will result in your article being deleted again. Furthermore, I am under the impression you might have a conflict of interest with regard to this person; if so, please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's best practices for editors with a COI. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom

Can you clarify whether the need to provide "basis" for the notification was removed in light of an admin not finding any. Could your name equally be added to the list if someone would opt to template you? Ankh.Morpork 00:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

In light of the fact that warnings are not sanctions and are only meant to inform an editor that misbehaviour in certain topic areas can lead to the imposition of restrictions, so as to avoid unpleasant surprises, I fail to see why you are considering the warning such a big deal. And yes, if another editor were to template me, in good faith, my name could equally be added to the list. The point, however, is that you do not get to edit war to remove your name from a list. If you think the addition is unwarranted, you may start a discussion. Edit warring results in blocks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Point taken re edit warring. I should have waited for Ed's response. However I was aggrieved that I was templated in bad faith, considering that the admin that Nableezy had first requested to so, declined for lack of merit. Thus I view the addition of my name unwarranted and request that you consider its "basis".

New day, a new perspective. Consider this issue closed. Ankh.Morpork 14:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser

Can you perform a checkuser? Normally I would be patient but since this is ChronicalUsual we are probably talking about I would act swiftly to avoid massive edit wars. Sopher99 (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChronicalUsual

Checked, but I'm sorry to say the results are inconclusive: this will have to be determined based on behavioural evidence... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 02:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

ChronicalUsual uses a proxy system. Would you like to double-check by checkusering it with User:DanielUmel? Sopher99 (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

• News and notes: First chickens come home to roost for FDC funding applicants; WMF board discusses governance issues and scope of programs

• WikiProject report: In recognition of... WikiProject Military History

• Technology report: Improved video support imminent and Wikidata.org live

• Featured content: On the road again

• Recent research: WP governance informal; community as social network; efficiency of recruitment and content production; Rorschach news

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Balph Eubank

Fyi, I've also revdel'ed his spout at the template talk page since I found it really grossly insulting to the other party. Daniel Case has meanwhile declined an unblock request. De728631 (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me in the loop! Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

AN/I thread conclusion

Salvio, do you think you could note your conclusion of the AN/I IBAN thread and its outcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Youreallycan? It's just a bit of tidying up that needs to be done but I think the Arbcom would appreciate it. Prioryman (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right! I knew I was forgetting something... Thanks for pointing this out. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for sorting it out. Prioryman (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

ANEW and SPI

Hi, Salvio, please look at this report at ANEW and this report at ANI. On the two editors who were reported at ANEW, you said at SPI that they were "a Confirmed match to each other. As a result of technical evidence I obtained through the tool, however, personally I don't think they are CU... " I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you explain, and do you expect action to be taken against the two editors based on the SPI report? I'd like to dispose of the ANEW report, but I'm unsure of my ground. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What I meant there was that Syrianview (talk · contribs) and Johnswk (talk · contribs) are the same person, but they are not ChronicalUsual (CU). I apologise if I was unclear.

That said, in my opinion the newer account should be indeffed as a sock and the older should receive a suitably long block. I'd have done it myself, but usually when I act as a CU at SPI, I don't do the actual blocking — sometimes, I do, but it's rare. So, to wrap it up, treat Syrianview and Johnswk as if they were one person — they are, actually. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL, I thought CU was check user. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The first time I read it, I made the same mistake... But, then again, during the FA kerfuffle, I used to worry whenever I read someone writing something about SG, thinking they referred to me, until I realised people usually meant SandyGeorgia... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just what I was about to say Sal. Though you put a tad more politely Darkness Shines (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

And look who's here. Howdy, DS. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Still keeping an eye on things my friend, plus a bottle of wine next time I hit Rome Darkness Shines (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This had better be an invitation... I love wine! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

additional sockpuppets

I added two names at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Artie04/Archive. As I almost never do this work, I confess I am fairly sure I did not follow the proper procedure for listing it. As you've worked on the other Expewikiwriter socks, I think the best thing I can do is turn it over to you. I have in the past noticed other articles of the same exact type and format in patrolling promotional articles, but never made the connection. If I can find them again, what's the simplest way I can do it, or if obvious sock is obvious, should I just block and add the name to the archive? I wish I could learn everything, but my own skill is in catching promotion by the nature of the article, & there's so much to do at NPP and AfC, that I'd rather not stop & learn a new procedure, but leave it to the experts. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi DGG, you added to the report to the archive, where it's not picked up by the SPI bot and, so, doesn't get added to the main SPI page. I have moved it to the right place, but have not had the time yet to review the evidence you provided (I hope to get to it tomorrow, if I can). Unfortunately, CU data are stale, here, so this will have to be decided based upon behavioural evidence; to be honest, I'll have to brush up on that a little, as the last time I dealt with this sockmaster was in May and I don't remember him particularly well...

For the future, if the quacking is loud enough, any admin can do the blocking. SPI is useful if i. you're a non-admin or ii. are not sure and need a second opinion/checkuser. As a general rule, it's usually not necessary to add the name to the archive, you can just tab the user's page with {{sockpuppet}}, unless the person in question has a long history of socking and keeping track of the various accounts he's used can provide useful information to identify future socks. As for the technical part, if you want to report a sock automatically, you can use Twinkle: the "arv" tab that appears when you visit a userpage allows you to report a user to ARV, UAA or SPI and it's very handy! Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 02:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

URL fix

You're welcome! (The details are at Percent-encoding if you're interested in learning more.) I guess we exchanged information, good deal. :) — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Dispute at Debi Gliori involves an IP who you blocked

See WP:ANI#Edits by recently blocked user 41.243.171.14‎. I've done some reading of the background, and it seems to me that *either* the Debi Gliori article should be placed under full protection, or the IP should be blocked for a month. There is an off-wiki dispute that seems to be continuing here. Events on Wikipedia have come to the attention of the Times, which is now cited as a source in Debi Gliori. It is hard to take seriously the IP's claim of being a victim, which he has made at ANI. Since you previously blocked the IP, what would you think of a longer block, which could be lifted if he promises to stay away from any matters involving Debi Gliori or anything related to his off-wiki dispute. User:TParis has revdeleted two of the IP's edits at Debi Gliori. It is not out of the question that the 'Controversy' section ought to be removed, but a proper discussion would probably be needed for that. The thing is already published in the Times. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was TParis who blocked; I merely reblocked without talk page privs because the IP was outing the other editor. However, I believe that things have finally cooled down a bit; the article hasn't been touched for hours and both editors are now discussing the issue on the article's talk page and on ANI. I'd say that there is no need for admins to intervene; rather, more uninvolved editors should chip in with their opinion regarding the content dispute, IMHO. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I agree that the crisis seems to have passed and there is no urgency to reblocking the IP. It was the IP's charges that they had been outed which appeared to create a need for sudden admin action. In fact there is no evidence still visible on Wikipedia that anyone was outing the IP. The IP's complaint was (if I understand it) about some things that another editor was said to be doing on Twitter and Facebook. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

• Op-ed: 2012 WikiCup comes to an end

• News and notes: Wikimedian photographic talent on display in national submissions to Wiki Loves Monuments

• In the media: Was climate change a factor in Hurricane Sandy?

• Discussion report: Protected Page Editor right; Gibraltar hooks

• Featured content: Jack-O'-Lanterns and Toads

• Technology report: Hue, Sqoop, Oozie, Zookeeper, Hive, Pig and Kafka

• WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Songs

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

old block

I just read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive761#Threats and I can't seem to find the names of the two accounts you blocked back then; it's not any of the three names (HuHu22, Koo88, Alariccc) mentioned earlier in the thread. Can you tell me what they were, so that I can tag them so they're categorized nicely? Or, even better, is there a way for me to find this myself? I don't have the checkuser privilege, only sysop. (Please leave a talkback.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The three accounts which were blocked as a result of that thread (and of my check) were: IvanHR (talk · contribs), HuHu22 (talk · contribs) and Warhammer76 (talk · contribs). Back then, I did not tag either Ivan or HuHu because I did not have a "real" sockmaster and because they were not really that useful for future comparisons, as they were using open proxies...

That said, when there are neither tags nor an SPI, the best way for a non-checkuser to know whose sock a given account is is to ask a checkuser. The alternative requires you to make assumptions, based on the checkuser's block log and this can lead to errors... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I find it useful to tag sockpuppet user pages because then one can read through their common categories and examine their editing pattern. If we later find some other sockpuppeteer, it's easy enough to connect the dots once again. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

In general, I agree with you and, usually, I try to tag the socks I block. Sometimes, however, I forget; others, I don't think it's useful, but, on second thoughts, I see why it can be, in this instance. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Salvio

How ya doin'? I hope that the banner issues are resolving. No rush but can you remember us having a natter here about a user with "truth" or "history" in their name, where I punted the idea of an alternate account for me called something like VerifiabilityIsEverything, being a twist on their name? I'd search your archives but you don't have a search box for them and I am thick. - Sitush (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is the thread — am I efficient? . And here is the user we were talking about. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks. Now posted here. Honestly, knowing someone in the legal profession who does not drag their feet is a source of constant amazement to me ;) - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Erm, that is only because on Wikipedia I don't get to bill by the hour... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

A fair point, well made. Well, that's my public response! - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HowardStrong

Hey, I don't know how checkuser works (which makes sense considering the nature of it) but I was wondering if you had checked for any other accounts since HowardStrong has shown a pattern of having multiple sockpuppets at a time? If you hadn't or you cannot that's fine, I just wasn't sure if you had seen this comment or if you had checked for others and that account was the only one. Either way, thank you for checking; I'd imagine being a checkuser is often a thankless task, but it is certainly appreciated. - SudoGhost 18:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I checked a large IP range, to see if I could locate other sleepers, but I only saw a couple of already blocked socks and a handful of logged-out edits; Doyouevenlift84 was the only unblocked account I could find. By the way, I also checked Rudd-O, but he appeared to edit from a different country (and an entirely different IP range). Unfortunately, the CU tool has many limitations and this is all I could find... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. When I looked further into it, it turns out the sudden influx of editors is the result of this off-wiki discussion as opposed to some huge sockpuppet-farm. - SudoGhost 02:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)